Evidence for God from Science

Yet there seems to be a bias against the theory of evolution which has far more empirical support than there is towards the theory of relativity with far less evidence.

What empirical support for evolution?

No, what this means is that science is not absolute. It is always subject to change based on new observations. Which makes science very unlike religion.

Maybe because one is a search for the truth, but the other (Christianity)...gives us a large number of truths.

The conclusions in science are based on observations we have made thus far.

When it comes to evolution, the scientific method is disgarded. You don't start with an observation, make a hypothesis, experiment, check data, and make a conclusion...in this arena, you come to the conclusion, find the observation (through circular reasoning at times) that supports your views, and then just gather evidence, interpret the data assuming evolution is true, and come to the stunning conclusion that it supports evolution. (This is coming from you and thereal)....

It's quite obvious this is so. When someone criticizes evolutoin, his methods are called unscientific, he's called a creationist, and there is no discussion.

When it comes to evolution, the scientific method is disgarded. You don't start with an observation, make a hypothesis, experiment, check data, and make a conclusion...in this arena, you come to the conclusion, find the observation (through circular reasoning at times) that supports your views, and then just gather evidence, interpret the data assuming evolution is true, and come to the stunning conclusion that it supports evolution.

It's probably not even worth it to address this post, but by this point it is blatantly obvious that you have little to no scientific background. What were the initial hypotheses Darwin and others had before synthesizing ToE...there were none, it was those original OBSERVATIONS that led to its formulation. If you're speaking in terms of today's experimentation, it's not like we can pretend to ignore the volumes of all previous observations that support evolution. Even if that is what you'd expect from science (starting at square one with no preconceived notions before each study), what other testable alternatives/conclusions do you think would arise from those studies that researchers should be considering? I'd really like to know. You may consider it a circular path when studies of evolution support evolution...I consider it continued reinforcement of a sound theory. If a study examines the effects of gravity on something, and we interpret the results in the light of what we have observed in the past, is that circular logic? You seem to think the notion of evolutionary scientists is "we need to provide even more support for evolution", but that is hardly the case. Evolutionary science is beyond trying to convince those with insurmountable preconceived notions, and we are now describing how the process works.

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:

The conclusions in science are based on observations we have made thus far.

When it comes to evolution, the scientific method is disgarded. You don't start with an observation, make a hypothesis, experiment, check data, and make a conclusion...in this arena, you come to the conclusion, find the observation (through circular reasoning at times) that supports your views, and then just gather evidence, interpret the data assuming evolution is true, and come to the stunning conclusion that it supports evolution. (This is coming from you and thereal)....

The idea is that once a conclusion is met you formulate testable a hypothesis. Then you go out and conduct the experiments and collect the data. The observations are then used to either falsify or support the hypothesis. Then others are encouraged to repeat the results. This is the scientific method.

Mozilla crashing can ruin your whole day...

It's probably not even worth it to address this post, but by this point it is blatantly obvious that you have little to no scientific background.

True...but it should be blatant not for that reason...but because I'm a freshman computer engineer....

What were the initial hypotheses Darwin and others had before synthesizing ToE...there were none, it was those original OBSERVATIONS that led to its formulation.

I was not referring all the way back to Darwin. Though I could have been referring to a number of his proponents, such as Haeckel. But, also...remember, many of the "conclusions" that many evolutionists come to when looking at the evidence iss nothing but materialistic philosophy that the evidence does NOT support, so it's possible that Darwin was just pouring materialistic philosophy into his works, and not science (because he did come up with his theory even though he knew evidence contradicted it).

If you're speaking in terms of today's experimentation, it's not like we can pretend to ignore the volumes of all previous observations that support evolution.

What volume of observations for evolution? Also, you can't use any observations interpreted assuming evolution to be true to support evolution, that is circular.

Even if that is what you'd expect from science (starting at square one with no preconceived notions before each study), what other testable alternatives/conclusions do you think would arise from those studies that researchers should be considering? I'd really like to know.

First, nobody has shown how evolution itself is testable and therefore falsifiable. Second, I don't see how not having an alternative theory (since you wish to ignore ID, though it IS testable) would weaken my position. Not all critics of evolution wish to replace it with something else...they just criticize it because it has big problems.

You may consider it a circular path when studies of evolution support evolution...I consider it continued reinforcement of a sound theory.

Strawman! Cut it out. I never said anything like that.

If a study examines the effects of gravity on something, and we interpret the results in the light of what we have observed in the past, is that circular logic?

No, and not what I said. I said it is circular reasoning to interpret observations assuming something is true, and then using the conclusion reached to then go back and support the assumption.

You seem to think the notion of evolutionary scientists is "we need to provide even more support for evolution", but that is hardly the case.

Actually, a little bit of evidence would be nice.

Evolutionary science is beyond trying to convince those with insurmountable preconceived notions, and we are now describing how the process works.

Ah, so you don't realize that your statement cuts both ways?

And you never told be how you found that Mao picture. I really want to know where you you found it.

Because it's mine.

Copy/pasted it from somewhere...on protestwarrior forums I think

Seriously?

That is exceedingly strange.

Like I said, I made that spray for counter-strike, and I posted it on my Photobucket account to show my fellow server regulars. Weird as hell.

Oh well, no biggie. I was just relly, really curious as to where you got it. Rock on.

I have the opinion that this thread is like a broken record... perhaps its utility is over. It is more than obvious that some certain posters hear what scientists say and discard it only to ask the next scientist the same question. I think the people who are giving evidence of evolution have done all they can... we have provided literature citations, arguments from other fields and personal experience as biologists and scientists ourselves. The scientific evidences we state fall on deaf ears and that is no way for a debate to be held. It seems some are choosing to argue just for the sake of argument, regardless of how sound our evidence and our arguments may be. We are continually asked for evidence and we continually provide it only for the same thing to happen 2 posts later... it is ridiculous. I challenge those who are continually asking for evidence of evolution, please provide literature citations for your own arguments and stop harassing certain people. This should be a two-sided debate, devoid of a single-sided defense.

Unless this can happen, where both sides of an argument can engage in civil debate by providing valid arguments or evidences, I think the purpose behind this forum should be in question. Nothing is being accomplished here and I am quite certain no one has learned anything other than the fact that certain posters are particularly stubborn.

Finally, to give a clarification (again) of my evidence: No, they were not the same bacteria that evolved to utilize lactose. The bacteria seen were the progeny of E. coli lacking the Lac operon... now, those of you who may be computer, math, or philosophy majors might not know what I am talking about. I think that may be a sign that one should cease to argue where one is not qualified to argue.

What is all this importance placed on proof? Proof is all around us. But proof is not the words from another's mouth, far from it. You will find no truth in the words of others, though words are still able to induce realization. You will find no evidence through deception and you will be no closer to the truth by being cunning. Disbelief of others is the downfall of humanity and the victory of the devil. If you want evidence, you must find it yourself, for no one else is able to give it to you but God himself.

Darwin found the language of lucifer when he developed his theory. For thousands of years man was under the influence of the devil, as all animals are, until God sent down his son to teach us morality. He told us not to live like animals, but rather to live as one, as humanity. We are still learning these lessons apparently, and it will take a long time for it to sink in.

Religion is under attack from science and science is under attack from religion. It is like the Right side of the brain attacking the Left. I have stated before here that to be absolute, to be fundamental (no matter what your beliefs) is ignorant. God is the only thing absolute, everything else is transient. You will die and enter His realm one day. The sun will fade and collapse. Our earth will die when the Rapture comes. But we must learn completely the lesson we were given 2 millenia ago before this happens. And we must use both sides of the brain to do so.

RoyLennigan wrote:Religion is under attack from science and science is under attack from religion. It is like the Right side of the brain attacking the Left. I have stated before here that to be absolute, to be fundamental (no matter what your beliefs) is ignorant.

So... To absolutely believe that absolutes are ignorant is to be ignorant?

Forge wrote:So... To absolutely believe that absolutes are ignorant is to be ignorant?

Why don't you try to understand what I am saying instead of pointing out a fallacy of language? To belive in an absolute based on incomplete evidence is ignorant. Since we all have incomplete evidence, and always will, it is ignorant to believe that anything is exactly how we percieve it. Since God is the only thing absolute, then the truth comes only from God. God is absolute because he created the universe. Being outside the universe, or at least on the boundries, He does not have to obey the laws of the universe. But inside the universe, he must obey the laws he put in motion. That is why he sent his son.

Part of it is, seeing is believing, and the other part, just the most important part, is to believe in the unseen. Jesus taught this, both seeing is believing and believing in the unseen. This world is not governed by man, it is governed by God, and for the people who don't know, satan is the master of this world, the master of deceivement, God only allows these things to happen, not causes them. This whole evolution thing for example, I find as a deceivement. Call me crazy, you're entitled to, but I believe with all my heart that this evolution thing is THE test. How many people have deconverted from religion because of science since Darwin observed this? Many, many people, over some HUGE deceivement. I will go as far to say that people who are evolutionists and are devoted to their work as an evolutionist is an atheist. Evolution is atheism. Did Jesus speak of satan numerous times and being deceived? Yes, He did. That should be applied to learning. A believer does not accept a non-believers work which is of satan. Jesus did say that you would be rejected for being a follower of Him. The thing is, God is real, He states He CREATED the world in 6 days. We have fallible instruments used by man to determine the age of earth among other things. There comes a time when you stop putting your complete trust in fallible science and hand it over to Jesus/God if you want that. But until that is done, you will lie in the state of doubts, feeling hopeless, being hopeless. I pray one day the non-believers will se the truth as many have found. The truth will set you free, and you will have a better life once you are COMMITTED to Jesus/God. You just have to take that risk and go for the ride, the train ride to real and eternal bliss.

Cougar...as has been said, microevolution is not macroevolution. A bacteria using a new energy source is not evidence for common descent.

Roy Lennigan,

Do you have the same negative feelings towards all scientists in history or just Darwin?

Yes, truth comes from experience. Experience is not numbers, or tests. These tests scientists use often are just intricate methods of decieving. They may not know that they are decieving, in fact, many truly believe it. But others still purposefully lie, persuaded by lucifer himself.

Those that try to shove facts in our faces are really decieving us. They are trying to win us over by hand-feeding us their 'theories'. One does not build a lifestyle on words. One builds a lifestyle on living; on experience. Experience is seeing, hearing, touching, smelling, tasting, and feeling (spiritually, emotionally).

The theory of evolution has spread dangerous and satanic ideals. The only thing Darwin discovered was how lucifer controls this world. "Survival of the fittest" and "Strong prevailing over the weak". These ideals influence people to live by them merely by their presence in our society. People become more primal (or should we say 'satanic') and therefore forget the teachings of Jesus. Capitalism is a disease spread by darwinistic thinking. Capitalism is an exact economic mirror of Satanism. Materialism, science, capitalism, and government (there is only one government, the realm of God) are all tools of the devil.