Evidence for God from Science

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:The problem I see with adaptation as evidence life evolves is that we can observe that life can adapt to survive hostile environments and we don't have to go in a science lab to observe it and when life adapts it does not evolve,yet when scientists see and observe life adapt in a lab,they tell us it evolved when it did'nt and it makes no difference if mutations happen,life that has adapted does not evolve and there are many examples in the world around us.The reason vaccines are produced is because life can adapt and not that it evolves,don't let anyone tell you different.

Evolve means to change, so are you saying when something adapts it does not change at all?

I'm going by the scientific definition of evolution and based on this life does not evolve because it adapted.There is no evolving when life adapts and we can see and observe many examples that it does not evolve.Change dooes not mean evolution or that it evolved.I do not reject reality and variations in reproduction can be considered change like a new breed of dog,but it is still a dog and will only ever be a dog based on reality not that life evolves.I do not look at a new kind of lizard as the lizard evolved because it is still a lizard but scientists do somehow.

The scientific meaning is

Evolution is defined as the process of growth and development or the theory that organisms have grown and developed from past organisms.

So when an organism adapts it is different from past organisms, therefore it has evolved.

How can you say life evolves based on the evidence then? How can you believe man evolved from a common ancestor or dinosaurs evooved into birds based on adaptation and what the evidence shows? Even when life adapts it remains the same kijd of life in every piece of evidence I have looked at for evolution.A virus remains a virus,bacteria remains bactera even after it adapts it never evolves like you think happens,or finches,salamanders,frogs,rats,etc in every example you have the same kind of life,the evidence proves and shows us life cannot and does not evolve.

Kurieuo wrote:ACB, I was thinking.

What evidence convinces you that Earth is old, given that you haven't actually seen how long it has been around for?
Then secondly, can those who believe in evolution of all life likewise find enough evidence without having to actually see millions of years of evolving?

Well first off I believe the earth is old and not young first because the bible reveals to us it is old and not young and I am now a Gap theorist and I have researched it and discovered it was Christians who started modern science that discovered the earth was old and not young,early geology and Paleontology discovered it,you see most people today think it is because of evolution the earth was discovered to be old,but it was before evolution became popular and this and other evidence was hyjacked away to support evolution.

Before evolution the evidence evolutionists now use as evidence was used as evidence for the Gap theory and them Christians read the KJV bible too and it is easier to see the translators knew about and understood the Gap theory.Perhaps this is why so many find it harder to accept the Gap theory today it is harder to see in newer translations but if the KJV translators believed it so much that it is in their translation then I don't see how Christians today can reject them and their reasons for believing it so easily in order to trust modern scholors.We should examine both fairly.The KJV translators were past bible scholors.

Also people can believe anything they choose to including evolution but I'm just explaining why I can't accept evolution based on the evidence.I might be trying to change their mind based on why I reject it,but I cannot make them.I can only try to explain why I don't and can't accept it and I've given them a chance to change my mind about it.

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:The problem I see with adaptation as evidence life evolves is that we can observe that life can adapt to survive hostile environments and we don't have to go in a science lab to observe it and when life adapts it does not evolve,yet when scientists see and observe life adapt in a lab,they tell us it evolved when it did'nt and it makes no difference if mutations happen,life that has adapted does not evolve and there are many examples in the world around us.The reason vaccines are produced is because life can adapt and not that it evolves,don't let anyone tell you different.

Evolve means to change, so are you saying when something adapts it does not change at all?

I'm going by the scientific definition of evolution and based on this life does not evolve because it adapted.There is no evolving when life adapts and we can see and observe many examples that it does not evolve.Change dooes not mean evolution or that it evolved.I do not reject reality and variations in reproduction can be considered change like a new breed of dog,but it is still a dog and will only ever be a dog based on reality not that life evolves.I do not look at a new kind of lizard as the lizard evolved because it is still a lizard but scientists do somehow.

The scientific meaning is

Evolution is defined as the process of growth and development or the theory that organisms have grown and developed from past organisms.

So when an organism adapts it is different from past organisms, therefore it has evolved.

How can you say life evolves based on the evidence then? How can you believe man evolved from a common ancestor or dinosaurs evooved into birds based on adaptation and what the evidence shows? Even when life adapts it remains the same kijd of life in every piece of evidence I have looked at for evolution.A virus remains a virus,bacteria remains bactera even after it adapts it never evolves like you think happens,or finches,salamanders,frogs,rats,etc in every example you have the same kind of life,the evidence proves and shows us life cannot and does not evolve.

Because the theory has not been falsified as of yet, if you can falsify evolution then write a paper and get it published.

Personally however, it just makes sense.

Lots of stories make sense to different people.

Kurieuo wrote:Lots of stories make sense to different people.

I really wish ACB would use punctuation and proper sentence structure, I find his posts unbelievably hard to read, it literally hurts my eyes.

I know mine isn't perfect, but my God man, use some commas!!

Danieltwotwenty wrote:I really wish ACB would use punctuation and proper sentence structure, I find his posts unbelievably hard to read, it literally hurts my eyes.

I know mine isn't perfect, but my God man, use some commas!!

I will try to write better, I think it is mostly the way I type that messes me up.It is a weakness of mine.

Kurieuo wrote:Lots of stories make sense to different people.

Yeah but I'm looking at pretty much the same evidence evolutionists use but I'm just trying to explain what it really proves.

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:Lots of stories make sense to different people.

Yeah but I'm looking at pretty much the same evidence evolutionists use but I'm just trying to explain what it really proves.

Well, I don't really disagree with you.

Keep in mind that sometimes fallen trees are too big of an obstacle to remove from the path so best to navigate around them if possible.

Sometimes you can even use them to your advantage.

Kurieuo wrote:Sometimes you can even use them to your advantage.

We have a massive log jam.

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:Sometimes you can even use them to your advantage.

We have a massive log jam.

I'm surprised you find the logs to be a problem to begin with, I prefer to make something from them.

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:Sometimes you can even use them to your advantage.

We have a massive log jam.

Many Christians think that about "Big Bang" cosmology too.
Others see the fine-tuning necessary and "in the beginning" beautifully supported.

Kurieuo wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:Sometimes you can even use them to your advantage.

We have a massive log jam.

Many Christians think that about "Big Bang" cosmology too.
Others see the fine-tuning necessary and "in the beginning" beautifully supported.

Yeah but right now it points to a creator so I don't mind it,I've questioned it based on other peoples points but I see what it points to and how effective it can be against naturalists in science but against evolution?It has no effect really.

Kurieuo wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:Lots of stories make sense to different people.

Yeah but I'm looking at pretty much the same evidence evolutionists use but I'm just trying to explain what it really proves.

Well, I don't really disagree with you.

Keep in mind that sometimes fallen trees are too big of an obstacle to remove from the path so best to navigate around them if possible.

"Same evidence, different interpretation" (SEDI) is about the moldiest / lamest excuse that any creationist can come up with.

They may well have access, in some sense, to the same evidence. Doesnt mean they have looked at much of it, or have the capacity to understand it.

The janitor has "access' to the same info that the brain surgeon has. He may have even seen a youtube, or attempted to read a professional journal, with his 8th grade reading level.