Evidence for God from Science

Believer wrote:

Thinker wrote:Mr._Burns, I have a simple question regarding a paragraph from your first post:

Mr._Burns wrote:Now sure how this post will be taken since I have seen many posts deleted and members banned. I hope the members and the admins will take this post with the openness and maturity they say they have.

My question is, since members on this forum, if banned, don't show a status of being banned, how do you know they are? I will not ask about posts being deleted, they are, but the banning issue brought high attention to me. I would assume you would know this if you are a registrant on atheist forums that members from there, register here, and get banned for not obeying forum guidelines, and then report back to the atheist forums and bring "issues" up like, "Christianity is a myth, there is no God, it is a hoax, where is the love from Christians?". So I see in that you would have communication with them (atheists), so in turn you are testing us for an experiment to see how long we hold up to whatever you post, which from right off the bat was you stating you were going to be giving the facts.

I assume your primary reason for being here may be for the evolution debates and then some other topics within the God and Science portion of the forums in whole, however, evolution is NOT a fact, and it has no laws such as thereal stating "evolution is right up there with gravity", and gravity does have laws and it only took a short amount of time for it to have laws, evolution still doesn't, yet I keep hearing, "one of these days, scientists will figure it all out, it will have laws". I don't buy that, and sorry for assuming, but I don't believe your statement about not being an atheist. If I am wrong, I apologize, but from the get go, it already looked like trouble. It's better to be open about your true beliefs now than conceal them and lie about it.

The reason atheists get banned from here is because they don't comply with forum guidelines, which a requirement. Failure to comply and going full swing into battle mode GUARANTEES an almost instant ban. I do know though that atheists that report back to their forum(s) from being banned here will lie about why they were banned so we look bad. This has happened far too many times to be unnoticeable. Out of rare occasion, some believers will be banned because they too, do not comply with forum guidelines and they are militant about such things as the prior banned atheists here.

Mr._Burns wrote:I have seen some of the posts people have made that led them to being banned. Not many but enough. They were in the Science & God forum, and personally I don't think the banning of the individuals I saw from the messages they posted was warranted. Challenging the belief of creationism is only expected since evolution is continuously challenged. If they cussed and made insulting comments than I can understand, but the posts I read did not. All they did was challenge creationism in an adult manner.

Unfortunately, you are only half right on this. People join and bash us Christians because we are "wrong", they get banned after excessively bashing us. They also DO NOT read forum guidelines. It's not tolerated. Also, there is communication via PM which isn't public. And you still didn't answer my question - since members on this forum, if banned, don't show a status of being banned, how do you know they are?

Mr._Burns wrote:No one ever said eolution was a fact, but neither is creationism. I'm a person of science, a person of science who went to a parochial school and had religion class every day of school for 12 years, and who also took upper level r.s. courses as an undergrad. I have read both sides time and time again, and I made my choice with an open mind.

Fair enough on your side.

Mr._Burns wrote:Still think I'm an athiest?

We'll see... You haven't posted what you believe in. Is science your idol? Define atheism in your own words. Are you an agnostic (weak form of atheism)? Pantheist (nature is god)?

Mr._Burns wrote:Evolution isn't concrete because we keep learning news things every day. Some parts of it change because of new evidence supported by the scientific community. We may never have it set down cold how everything works, but we have a pretty good idea. I always hear that evolution has holes in it etc etc... Do you think creationism is sound?
Think what we have learned from science in the past 50 years. Imagine what we will learn in the next 10, 20 etc... The data to back up evolution is only going to get better and better.

Better and better in what sense? So far, all I see on my side of things is the same stuff being presented with more evidence of species of the past but not going any further.

Because a lot of the pro-science people post on other forums also. I read the posts that got them banned. I know they were banned because their user name was rejected the next time they tried to log in, and their post was removed. I didn't just hear some story and take their word on what happened.

Science is not my idol. Although I think its an amazing field that has pretty much benefited human existance more than anything. Travel from cars to planes, computers, building, medications etc.... All a result of science.

Ya, I haven't posted what I believe in because its no ones business. All that should matter is what I state and my ability to back it up.

Better and better in the sense that were obtaining more and more data to back up evolutionary claims. Some aspects get correcting because because of new data, others are reinforced. We learn news things everyday, and if the theory was soo bad it would have been gone a long time ago.
What evidence has come around that has helped creationism?

Mystical wrote:Mr. Burns:

...but if you make a claim that I clearly know is wrong should you not have to back it up since I know your wrong?

:?Nobody has to do anything they don't want to do (except die and answer to God). I'm sure you've heard that before? Besides, you've been wrong on alot of things (mainly on your interpretation of what I've said) and you continue to avoid the issue.

How can you expect someone to believe you with no reputable sources?

There have been many reputable sources on this site. Whether you accept them or not is another matter.

You think I need a review for listening. Which I totally disagree with, nothing wrong with how I read and understand people's posts. Do you think you need a review in biology since you claimed clones don't exist when they obviously do?

Hmm, I can understand you disagreeing with me. Most people like to think they are right most of the time. However, having a problem with your listening skills does not mean you are defective...just something you need to work on. However, I think there is another problem here. I am suspecting that you might be having reading/comprehension problems. That would explain alot of things, mostly why you are so frustrated at people's responses (you don't understand them). Mr. Burns, I never claimed clones don't exist.

Who hasn't heard that statement? But theres more of a chance to be ignored and not taken seriously if you can't back things up.

You say I havent been listening to what you said. I don't think so, but mabey I have. Its a matter of interpretation, and I haven't been avoiding the issue. I sure think you have misinterpreted plenty of the things I have mentioned.

Yes there have been some reputable sources, mostly given by the left. I've seen sources given from the right that made me laugh.

I not an angry person, but making statements saying I have a reading/comprehension problem is going too far.
Funny since reading/comprehension is essential for the field of science. So if I'm wrong I'm sorry, but I can easily assume I have more science education than pretty much most if not all on the right. So my reading/comprehension must be that bad, right?

You claimed

Why don't clones live? Scientifically? Spiritually? Maybe they don't have souls? Anyone ever think about this?

Its its well known about scientifically produced clones like Dolly the sheep. YOu make a statement asking why don't clones live, as if they don't exist outside of a science laboratory. Its easy to phrase things vague so you can dance around replys.

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:

Inductive reasoning leads one to conclude that organisms change over time.
Deductive reasoning allows one to reach the conclusion than many changes over time result in a large change.

Uh........no. For example, say you go to the gym and notice an extremely scrawny guy...and after several weeks, you notice he's becoming more and more muscular....and he eventually starts making this guy look weak:

Does this mean his muscles can continue to get dizzingly bigger?

Upon further examination you would realize there is a limit to and individual's potential.

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:But an even more approppriate analogy would be if you watched this original Pee Wee only running on the treadmill.....and you notice he gets stronger leg muscles...do you think he would ever look like

No, because he's changing in the wrong way...He's not working the right muscles...

Again your talking about individual potential, which is limited. However no such limitations have been observed regarding the variety within a population. In other words what mechanism is in place to stop microevolutionary changes from occuring, after a certain amount of them have accumulated? From the genetic perspective all animals operate and develop the same way, they are all the same in this respect, one big family. Other than specific sequences there is no way to distinguish between different species.

Mr._Burns wrote: I not an angry person, but making statements saying I have a reading/comprehension problem is going too far.
Funny since reading/comprehension is essential for the field of science. So if I'm wrong I'm sorry, but I can easily assume I have more science education than pretty much most if not all on the right. So my reading/comprehension must be that bad, right?

Ok, now back up your claim.

Mr_Burns

I would like to make sure you and the Rest of the Forum are able to enjoy this Conversation. Please be advised as a Courtesy of the below link to the Guidelines of this Board.

http://discussions.godandscience.org/viewtopic.php?p=4

Thanks

Upon further examination you would realize there is a limit to and individual's potential.

Yes

Again your talking about individual potential, which is limited. However no such limitations have been observed regarding the variety within a population. In other words what mechanism is in place to stop microevolutionary changes from occuring, after a certain amount of them have accumulated? From the genetic perspective all animals operate and develop the same way, they are all the same in this respect, one big family. Other than specific sequences there is no way to distinguish between different species.

But, there is something in the way-and this problem is this-mutate the hell out of DNA, but you will never get a new species.

http://www.eyedesignbook.com/ch6/eyech6-append-d.html

The heart of Dr. Meyer's argument is found in this scientifically-loaded passage: "Neo-Darwinism seeks to explain the origin of new information, form, and structure as a result of selection acting on randomly arising variation at a very low level within the biological hierarchy, mainly, within the genetic text. Yet the major morphological innovations depend on a specificity of arrangement at a much higher level of the organizational hierarchy, a level that DNA alone does not determine. Yet if DNA is not wholly responsible for body plan morphogenesis, then DNA sequences can mutate indefinitely, without regard to realistic probabilistic limits, and still not produce a new body plan. Thus, the mechanism of natural selection acting on random mutations in DNA cannot in principle generate novel body plans, including those that first arose in the Cambrian explosion."
In simpler terms, the mechanism of natural selection, central to evolutionary theory, cannot possibly account for the development of so many varied and complex life forms simply by mutations in DNA. Rather, some conscious design--thus requiring a Designer--is necessary to explain the emergence of these life forms.
In the remainder of his paper, Meyer attacks the intellectual inadequacies of evolutionary theory and argues for what is now known as the "design Hypothesis." As he argued, "Conscious and rational agents have, as a part of their powers of purposive intelligence, the capacity to design information-rich parts and to organize those parts into functional information-rich systems and hierarchies." As he went on to assert, "We know of no other causal entity or process that has this capacity." In other words, the development of the multitude of higher life forms found on the planet can be explained only by the guidance of a rational agent--a Designer--whose plan is evident in the design.

Mr. Burns:

Who hasn't heard that statement?

Phew. I'm glad.

But there's more of a chance to be ignored and not taken seriously if you can't back things up.

True. But, my original purpose was to explain to you why people don't often post the proof requested. Again, and for the last time: 1) Just because posters don't post proof doesn't mean it doesn't exist. 2) Posters often are frustrated by commentors requesting immediate feedback. In addition, you must realize where you are. You are on a Christian site. Sadly, it appears you have not come to learn, but in attempts to prove people are wrong. Nobody here really is worried about being ignored or about not being taken seriously-- we've already acquired the knowledge we deem necessary to make up our minds, we aren't missing out on any knowledge that you might feel will "enlighten" us, we've heard it all before. I stress again: it is apparent that you aren't striving to learn, but to be right. You're objective from the start has been to ignore and not take anyone seriously. It doesn't take much to figure that out.

You say I haven't been listening to what you said. I don't think so...Its a matter of interpretation...

You haven't been listening to what I've been saying, Mr. Burns. You are interpreting my words to fit your needs, but that doesn't change what I've said. You are avoiding the issue or you still don't understand.

...some reputable sources, mostly given by the left. I've seen sources given from the right that made me laugh.

I've seen sources given from the left that made me laugh. All the time. Most of the time.

I am not an angry person...

You are implying that you are.

...making statements saying I have a reading/comprehension problem is going too far.

I apologize. I haven't meant to hurt your feelings. It was an observation, however, that I feel remains accurate.

Funny since reading/comprehension is essential for the field of science...So my reading/comprehension must be that bad, right?

I don't know. You've demonstrated that it is.

...but I can easily assume I have more science education than pretty much most if not all on the right.

I don't think that's an accurate assumption. But if it was, it wouldn't matter. Science is not in disharmony with Christianity. But, if that was, science is in no way the backbone of Christianity. It's not needed in anyway to follow Jesus. Now that I think about it, it's not needed for most of the important things in life.

You make a statement asking why don't clones live...

Again, you've demonstrated reading comprehension problems. Clones don't live. They die prematurely. I will phrase things more concretely for you in the future.

It is easy to phrase things vague so you can dance around replys.

I haven't danced around any replies. I don't need to. I wasn't trying to prove a point; just questioning. Maybe you missed that too?

Mystical wrote:True. But, my original purpose was to explain to you why people don't often post the proof requested. Again, and for the last time: 1) Just because posters don't post proof doesn't mean it doesn't exist. 2) Posters often are frustrated by commentors requesting immediate feedback. In addition, you must realize where you are. You are on a Christian site. Sadly, it appears you have not come to learn, but in attempts to prove people are wrong. Nobody here really is worried about being ignored or about not being taken seriously-- we've already acquired the knowledge we deem necessary to make up our minds, we aren't missing out on any knowledge that you might feel will "enlighten" us, we've heard it all before. I stress again: it is apparent that you aren't striving to learn, but to be right. You're objective from the start has been to ignore and not take anyone seriously. It doesn't take much to figure that out.

I believe I understand the source of frustration that is being displayed by Mr. Burns, but I'll let him correct me if I'm wrong. I too have been frustrated in what I deem to be a similar manner, so I'm going to try to create a simple analogy that may explain and hopefully ameliorate the source of the problem:

If someone is trying to support their position on something, the general form I see on this site is "We know ___X___, therefore I believe ____Y____. That's fine, if X is established fact. I'm not even talking about what you believe or your opinion of some possibly vague data, this is just in reference to whether the X can be agreed on by consensus...this is most easily achieved for something that can be observed. The problem is that when someone says "We know ___X___, therefore I believe ____Y____" and the X is wrong, the Y is inherently flawed and thus the whole argument becomes invalid, yet people are unwilling to retract their statement or find an alternate, suitable X. For example, from my own personal experience, someone claimed that snakes are the only things on land that crawl on their bellies, thus supporting his claim that the snake was a cursed animal. Same format: "We see X, therefore I believe Y"; however, it is observable that snakes are not the only animals that crawl on there bellies...legless lizards do it as well, for one example among many. Therefore, the X is false, thus making Y invalid for the purposes of their argument. This is precisely where Mr. Burns' frustration lies, if I'm understanding correctly...rather than retracting the validity of Y or coming up with a new observation X, people on this site simply ignore the fact that the observation they were relying on has been shown to be false. They simply go on debating without even aknowledging the fact that the support their argument rests on doesn't exist. From my own example, I need make no claim regarding the validity of the belief that the snake is a cursed animal, for no supported argument has been provided. If however, the snake was the only crawling animal, there is nothing I could say to debate the argument, for anything further is a matter of belief.

I don't know if this example will help at all, but seriously all I'm trying to do is show is that the frustration among those arguing from the point of science has nothing to do with what you believe...it has to do with providing misinformation as your starting point. It has even more to do with not admitting when your argument has been shown to be flawed, and it has the most to do with when you keep trying to push your point after your supporting evidence is not there. In my opinion this problem has nothing to do with science or religion but everything to do with basing a debate on solid information. Hope I didn't offend anyone or add more heat to this thread...hoping I was at least less than totally confusing!

thereal: Cool. I can understand that. I think that was a good example. I've seen that before; just not incredibly often. I think lots of people do that. It definately isn't a uniquely Christian thing. I don't think it's unique to this site.