Evidence for God from Science

i'm just telling you not to dish out what you can't handle yourself.

I can handle you like a Mexican can handle Tequila. I'm not dishing out what I can't handle.

i read words but they meant nothing. we only know what we can do, not 'intelligence'. we can call ourselves intelligent, but that is only because we control the meaning of the word. are humans able to create irreducibly complex systems?

To the last statement, yes. And to the rest...make sense por favor en el futuro.

i'd like to hear your version of god.

There are no versions of God. There is the correct view, and all the wrong views.

they create diversity; thats all they have to.

Nonsense

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:I can handle you like a Mexican can handle Tequila. I'm not dishing out what I can't handle.

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:

If we find a natural object, like a bird or a shell, we see that it is not designed, but rather was fashioned by nature.

Why not? Just assertions again?

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:Because we weren't there when it happenned, obviously-life, though, has all the hallmarks of design-they have what the arrowhead has, and then some.

You complain that the theory of evolution is just theory and has no evidential support, and yet you advocate a belief that has even less evidence than evolution. In one sentence (the last) you blatantly contradict yourself.

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:

are humans able to create irreducibly complex systems?

To the last statement, yes. And to the rest...make sense por favor en el futuro.

But those systems are put together from already developed systems. Humans only take what occurs naturally, and change the form into something else, they are making nothing, only reforming and recombining.

I am saying that our only knowledge of any of God's work are the everyday observations of nature. We can only know God by observing how the universe acts because God created the universe. The only intelligence we know is us. And the term intelligence was created by us, so it only has meaning to us. My definition of intelligence would be an increasing complex system that allows feedback on itself. The human mind lets the world look back on itself, and act in a way other than fundamental force.

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:There are no versions of God. There is the correct view, and all the wrong views.

what is the correct view, then, in your words.

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:

they create diversity; thats all they have to.

Nonsense

This is why you disagree with evolution. Because you do not understand it.

You complain that the theory of evolution is just theory and has no evidential support, and yet you advocate a belief that has even less evidence than evolution. In one sentence (the last) you blatantly contradict yourself

No, I wouldn't call evolution a theory. And my view has no evidence? Really? The fossil record genius. The information in DNA. Irreducibly complex systems. My goodness. Evidence for evolution though?

But those systems are put together from already developed systems. Humans only take what occurs naturally, and change the form into something else, they are making nothing, only reforming and recombining.

Nonsense once again.

I am saying that our only knowledge of any of God's work are the everyday observations of nature. We can only know God by observing how the universe acts because God created the universe. The only intelligence we know is us. And the term intelligence was created by us, so it only has meaning to us. My definition of intelligence would be an increasing complex system that allows feedback on itself. The human mind lets the world look back on itself, and act in a way other than fundamental force.

You are ignoring the special revelation. And I really don't see what you're trying to prove by saying man made the word intelligence.

This is why you disagree with evolution. Because you do not understand it.

Yes yes yes, just ignorance, that's my only problem. Not real problems, of course not. It's all in my head. You twit.

Evolution has been proven impossible even at the mollecular level, so how would you ever expect it to happen at the species level? The only idea keeping evolution alive is the idea that God cannot exist. Face it; evolution is an out-of-date theory.
More at: http://www.evidenceofgod.com/answers/creation.htm

smrpgx wrote:Evolution has been proven impossible even at the mollecular level

Where is this "evidence" coming from. I looked through the link you provided, and the only connection between molecular biology and evolution provided was an erroneous one linking molecular information and the impossibilty of abiogenesis. Of course, evolution doesn't deal with abiogenesis, so why this aspect was brought up in terms of evolution I'll never know. However, I can see why, if sources such as this are your foundation for disbelief in evolution, you do not believe in evolution. This link is so full of misinformation that I can't tell whether it is the author's intent to deceive the audience or if the author has no knowledge of evolution whatsoever. Repeatedly, I have implored those looking to discredit evolution to actually read an account of evolution and the examples provided by evolutionary biologists. You may not agree with it, but at least you'd be arguing against their actual conclusions and observations rather than following some lame website built on lies. If your claim of evolution being proven false at the molecular level is from a source other than this website, I'd like to know what is it, because the link you provided is dishonest, either by intent or a lack of information concerning evolution.

Of course, evolution doesn't deal with abiogenesis, so why this aspect was brought up in terms of evolution I'll never know.

Thereal, come on, you must notice the connection between abiogenesis and evolution. If you're trying to explain how life came about naturally, and you can't get life started naturally...there's a problem.

Here's a quote fropm that website.

"Space scientists (Astrophysicists) have "proven" that General Relativity is FACT. This means time and space had a beginning - just like the Bible says."

General relativity has less empirical support than evolution. Apparently an Astrophysicist is treated here as a prophet while a Biologist's opinion isn't even mentioned. The truth is they are bnoth just scientists.

I would have to agree with thereal on this one.

If you want to argue against something the least you can do is understand what your up against.

In terms of scientific insight his web page is not worth anyone's time.
See following quote.

"Recent evidence indicates the Neanderthal "man" was really an extinct ape."

General relativity has less empirical support than evolution. Apparently an Astrophysicist is treated here as a prophet while a Biologist's opinion isn't even mentioned. The truth is they are bnoth just scientists.

There is no such thing as negative evidence BGood. (for those who don't get it, there is no empirical evidence for evolution)

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:

General relativity has less empirical support than evolution. Apparently an Astrophysicist is treated here as a prophet while a Biologist's opinion isn't even mentioned. The truth is they are bnoth just scientists.

There is no such thing as negative evidence BGood. (for those who don't get it, there is no empirical evidence for evolution)

Alright then, you are always ready to make bold, general statements, but are you capable of having a genuine conversation? Are you able to maintain a train of thought and convey ideas? Let's do a thought experiment.

How was the Grand Canyon formed?

You can't prove me wrong? Instead you ask me about the Grand Canyon?

And what use is getting into specifics? I tried in the Behe discussion, and all you could do was raise the white flag, do some hand waiving, and respond with nothing but platitudes and ignorance. And we seem to be having deja vu right about now.

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:You can't prove me wrong? Instead you ask me about the Grand Canyon?

And what use is getting into specifics? I tried in the Behe discussion, and all you could do was raise the white flag, do some hand waiving, and respond with nothing but platitudes and ignorance. And we seem to be having deja vu right about now.

Shouldn't you prove yourself right before handing me the burden of proving you wrong?

A simple "That's not true, isn't in any conceiveable way a proof, only a statement.

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:You can't prove me wrong? Instead you ask me about the Grand Canyon?

And what use is getting into specifics? I tried in the Behe discussion, and all you could do was raise the white flag, do some hand waiving, and respond with nothing but platitudes and ignorance. And we seem to be having deja vu right about now.

Shouldn't you prove yourself right before handing me the burden of proving you wrong?

A simple "That's not true, isn't in any conceiveable way a proof, only a statement.

I cannot prove a negative BGood. Or must we go through that one step at a time to figure out why? Come on BGood, I've made an exceedingly weak statement-it only takes one stone to topple it. So do it.

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote: I cannot prove a negative BGood. Or must we go through that one step at a time to figure out why? Come on BGood, I've made an exceedingly weak statement-it only takes one stone to topple it. So do it.

No, it's not worth my time, I'm off to lunch.
=P

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote: I cannot prove a negative BGood. Or must we go through that one step at a time to figure out why? Come on BGood, I've made an exceedingly weak statement-it only takes one stone to topple it. So do it.

No, it's not worth my time, I'm off to lunch.
=P

Thereal, come on, you must notice the connection between abiogenesis and evolution. If you're trying to explain how life came about naturally, and you can't get life started naturally...there's a problem.

Luckily, the burden of proof for abiogenesis does not lie with the theory of evolution. While there are similar aspects involved in the two processes (change over time), the differences between the two (such as one involves reproduction and the other does not) are monumental and show that they are two separate issues. Trying to make a connection between the two is hasty and/or a bad approach. It's like the commonly-given example of looking at a series of computers through time and implying the existence of a creator because they become more advanced, then using this logic to imply a creator for all life. As computers are not "life" (no reproduction), the similarities in the two issues (change over time) do not supercede the fact that the two issues are visibly separate. However, my main point was that the provided website was misleading either by intent or misunderstanding of evolution..I don't know which.