Evidence for God from Science

Byblos wrote:You're right, science doesn't know much about abiogenesis. I totally agree with that. Then why is it taught as fact in schools?Why do Darwinian Evolutionists peddle it as a proven theory?

I don't think it's shown as a proven theory, as of now there are nothing more than hypotheses regarding abiogenesis.

But there are two distinct topics here. There is also the fact that abiogenesis occurred. From what evidence we can gather, there was no life prior to 3.5 billion years ago. The Earth itself is 4.5 billion years old. So IF earth was not seeded from another world, abiogenesis must have occurred, an indirect fact if you would.

There are two topics here. One is whether or not it did occur. The fact.

The other is HOW it occurred the hypothesis/theories.

gman wrote:We are discussing the ultimate cause for life… This has been my point from the beginning.

godslanguage wrote:The you must beg the question why you have these chemical processes that lead to life in the first place.

Perhaps we can all agree on this: a specific 100 amino acid protein will not form by chance. The very low chance of this (1 in some really big number) (based on some implicit assumptions) essentially rules out such an occurrence.
Bgood's post of Thu Mar 01, 2007 is a good response to what I thought this thread was about. But now, it seems that the real question is, why is there life and this universe at all, with the protein formation merely being given as an example of one problem.
Would the question perhaps be better phrased as, If you don't believe in a Creator, then how do you explain the existence of life and the universe?

It is easy to envision how a Creator could operate, either by specific and continuous acts or through a process such as evolution guided by natural laws created for that purpose.

But what does it mean to say that everything could be a product of chance? [I don't understand Byblos' use of "ordered chemical reactions".] If life is a product of chance, then can't the argument be extended to say that the universe is also a product of chance? The chance formation of a protein from a solution of its constituent amino acids follows from statistical probabilities. But this implies a prior set of concepts, such as "amino acids", "relative probabilities of reaction", etc, where the outcome is a random selection of one of a number of possibilities. It implies the existence of these amino acids and their reactions. What then does it mean to say that the universe is a result of chance?

sandy_mcd wrote:What then does it mean to say that the universe is a result of chance?

It means that God had no hand in creating it.. A concept that goes totally against scripture...

Genesis 14 And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth." And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good.

God created everything pure and simple... Any other way would be grounds for naturalistic means.

Gman wrote:

sandy_mcd wrote:What then does it mean to say that the universe is a result of chance?

It means that God had no hand in creating it..

I'm still confused. Can anyone give an example of how a universe with its associated natural laws could spring into existence by chance?
I can see a naturalistic mechanism whereby someone can flip a coin and get 10,000 heads in a row - random chance. [I will of course believe that they are cheating somehow, but there is still a non-cheating mechanism.] But how does a universe pop into existence by chance?

Byblos wrote: I'm having a hard time understanding what you're saying.
Why would God be forced to do anything? He could just as well leave us to our
own devices but in his infinite wisdom and love he reveals himself to us,
subtly through natural wonders (including science), and more directly through
the Bible, prophecies and their fulfillment, the culmination of which is Jesus Christ.
If it weren't for these interferences a lot more people would be lost.

Fair enough Byblos. That is where my English is not as good as I wished.
I did not mean God is "forced", i.e. he cannot avoid. Of course it is free to do what it pleases.
I was referring to physical actions aimed to help the physical universe to
be life friendly, species to appear, species to get extincted, mutations to occur or similar things.

I agree its spiritual actions are expression of its loving nature.
I keep considering a diminishing attitude to consider the physical universe needs divine maintainence
as far as life evolution is considered.
I believe God would be a good enough designer to start a physical universe
so that it can work on its onw still hitting its goal.

Byblos wrote: This again makes no sense. Either God interferes or he doesn't.
You can't have it both ways. Inserting something to make life spring
up on its own is interference. And if God can interfere in such a manner,
why not the way we claim he is?

see http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... 4595#44595
I think it better renders what I meant to say.

Byblos wrote: That's the trouble Angel. It is basically an unsupported opinion and nothing more
(with all due respect, of course).

No lack of respect. I agree it is just unsupported opinion. I presented it that way.
I disagree your opinion is better supported, but that is not what we are going to discuss here.
As far as the bible is concerned, if you consider the Bible as the only source, YEC is the best supported.
Not for that YEC is true.

Byblos wrote: Somewhat but not entirely (it will do for now though).
Just to repeat one thing, either God created the universe or he didn't.
It is meaningless to say God did not create anything physical but everything physical
came about because of what God initially set up. They are one and the same.

see http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... 4595#44595
Is it clearer than before?

Byblos wrote: You're right, science doesn't know much about abiogenesis.
I totally agree with that.
Then why is it taught as fact in schools? Why is it projected as an incontrovertible truth?
Why do Darwinian Evolutionists peddle it as a proven theory?

Well I know what they tought me. They never said abiogenesis was an incontrovertible truth.
Not to me at least, nor to anybody in my country.
They told me, and I agree, that *evolution* was a very solidly supported scientific truth.
They told me that abiogenesis is a scenario, still to be specified and which it is the only
currently possible naturalistic scenario.
They also tought me, and I agree, that there is no fact that clearly contradict such possibility
though positive evidences are still lacking.

My impression is that you tend to mix abiogenesis and evolution. I might be wrong though.