Evidence for God from Science

I am certainly no discounting them, I am criticizing their taking a mechanism and mixing with philosophy.

I see you are ready to discount *us* and yet you are ready to defend them.

Yeah I'd agree whole heartedly with you that adapting laws of science and nature and trying to turn them into a philosophical/moral system usually won't work too well (hey guys! check out my philosophy of gravity...because gravity is science we should all fall down all the time!!!).
I will reiterate my point though that whether or not people use theories in this manner is a separate issue to whether that theory is true or not.

Please don't think I'm ready to discount anyone (sorry if I have come across this way, that's honestly not what I'm about). I'm ready to defend good science and truth, whoever it comes from. I'm also ready to robustly counter any claims that run contrary to observed and well established facts...hopefully in an intelligent, coherent and, above all, constructive manner.

touchingcloth wrote:Yeah I'd agree whole heartedly with you that adapting laws of science and nature and trying to turn them into a philosophical/moral system usually won't work too well (hey guys! check out my philosophy of gravity...because gravity is science we should all fall down all the time!!!).
I will reiterate my point though that whether or not people use theories in this manner is a separate issue to whether that theory is true or not.

Please don't think I'm ready to discount anyone (sorry if I have come across this way, that's honestly not what I'm about). I'm ready to defend good science and truth, whoever it comes from. I'm also ready to robustly counter any claims that run contrary to observed and well established facts...hopefully in an intelligent, coherent and, above all, constructive manner.

Science is not in the business of ultimate explanations. That's not what it does.. It works on specific things, it advances theories, but it never makes a claim about everything. People make the claims. People that are committed to Darwin's theory in advance lose sight of the difference between the theory and the facts and hence they present it as unquestionably true.

All these forms of cultural dissolution have come about due to a shift in worldview ideas to a worldview based on the idea that the final reality is impersonal matter or energy shaped into its current form by impersonal chance.

As a religion, Darwinism is intolerant. The Darwinist assumes that what he believes is true. Therefore, only evidence that supports Darwinism can be valid evidence. Those who propose other theories must be silenced, for the good of society.

Evolution: The changing of genes within a population over time.

We know that genes change in a population over time, if you are not a clone of your parent then you are living proof of evolution. If you witsh to say 'macro' or speciation is a lie and could not possibly happen because you have not witnessed it, go for it.

The 'religious evolution' you talk of is not what is taught in schools, and is not what educated people mean when they say they believe in evolution.

qqMOARpewpew wrote:Evolution: The changing of genes within a population over time. We know that genes change in a population over time, if you are not a clone of your parent then you are living proof of evolution.

You are confusing the science of genetics with the religious belief evolution. Here is some information I found that may help clarify the difference...

Genetic Recombination

This involves shuffling the genes and is the reason that children resemble their parents very closely but are not exactly like either one. The discovery of the principles of recombination was Gregor Mendel's great contribution to the science of genetics. Mendel showed that while traits might be hidden for a generation they were not usually lost, and when new traits appeared it was because their genetic factors had been there all along. Recombination makes it possible for there to be limited variation within the created kinds. But it is limited because virtually all of the variations are produced by a reshuffling of the genes that are already there.

For example, from 1800, plant breeders sought to increase the sugar content of the sugar beet. And they were very successful. Over some 75 years of selective breeding it was possible to increase the sugar content from 6% to 17%. But there the improvement stopped, and further selection did not increase the sugar content. Why? Because all of the genes for sugar production had been gathered into a single variety and no further increase was possible.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creatio ... netics.asp

qqMOARpewpew wrote:If you witsh to say 'macro' or speciation is a lie and could not possibly happen because you have not witnessed it, go for it.

Science REQUIRES witnesses and even repeated witnesses to verify. To be a scientist you have to think like Missourians: SHOW ME. If they can't "show me" through experimentation it is NOT science. This is how to tell the difference between what is science and what is not.

CharlieB wrote:A valid scientific theory must be able to be proved or disproved by experimentation. No one says they believe in gravity. Gravity is a proven fact.

qqMOARpewpew wrote:The 'religious evolution' you talk of is not what is taught in schools, and is not what educated people mean when they say they believe in evolution.

It almost always comes to this when trying to get evolutionists to acknowledge that evolution is a religious belief: They insist circle is a square. The same reason evolutionist don't believe in God (lack of proof) is the same reason why evolution is a religion (lack of proof). Evolutionists just choose to believe in evolution and others choose to believe in God. They are both religions. I have the courage to admit my belief in God is a religion, why don't the evolutionists have the courage to admit theirs is a religion?

CharlieB wrote:

qqMOARpewpew wrote:Evolution: The changing of genes within a population over time. We know that genes change in a population over time, if you are not a clone of your parent then you are living proof of evolution.

You are confusing the science of genetics with the religious belief evolution. Here is some information I found that may help clarify the difference...

Genetic Recombination

This involves shuffling the genes and is the reason that children resemble their parents very closely but are not exactly like either one. The discovery of the principles of recombination was Gregor Mendel's great contribution to the science of genetics. Mendel showed that while traits might be hidden for a generation they were not usually lost, and when new traits appeared it was because their genetic factors had been there all along. Recombination makes it possible for there to be limited variation within the created kinds. But it is limited because virtually all of the variations are produced by a reshuffling of the genes that are already there.

For example, from 1800, plant breeders sought to increase the sugar content of the sugar beet. And they were very successful. Over some 75 years of selective breeding it was possible to increase the sugar content from 6% to 17%. But there the improvement stopped, and further selection did not increase the sugar content. Why? Because all of the genes for sugar production had been gathered into a single variety and no further increase was possible.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creatio ... netics.asp

qqMOARpewpew wrote:If you witsh to say 'macro' or speciation is a lie and could not possibly happen because you have not witnessed it, go for it.

Science REQUIRES witnesses and even repeated witnesses to verify. To be a scientist you have to think like Missourians: SHOW ME. If they can't "show me" through experimentation it is NOT science. This is how to tell the difference between what is science and what is not.

CharlieB wrote:A valid scientific theory must be able to be proved or disproved by experimentation. No one says they believe in gravity. Gravity is a proven fact.

qqMOARpewpew wrote:The 'religious evolution' you talk of is not what is taught in schools, and is not what educated people mean when they say they believe in evolution.

It almost always comes to this when trying to get evolutionists to acknowledge that evolution is a religious belief: They insist circle is a square. The same reason evolutionist don't believe in God (lack of proof) is the same reason why evolution is a religion (lack of proof). Evolutionists just choose to believe in evolution and others choose to believe in God. They are both religions. I have the courage to admit my belief in God is a religion, why don't the evolutionists have the courage to admit theirs is a religion?

Speciation takes separated populations tens of thousands of years.

If we found thousands and thousands of angel fossils god would be science, but we haven't.

I'm not going to try to convince you that evolution happens, I don't have any desire to, believe whatever you wish.

Evolution is no more a religion than atheism. I'm sure you think atheism is a religion too so I figure this works for the two of us.

CharlieB wrote:Recombination makes it possible for there to be limited variation within the created kinds. But it is limited because virtually all of the variations are produced by a reshuffling of the genes that are already there.

You miss out the numerous ways in which genes occur or change, rather than just the creation of new genomes from recombination of extant through sexual reproduction. New and modified genes can become as prevalent throughout a species (or a subpopulation of that species) as any of the genes that were present in the genepool before the new gene arose.

A mutation refers to any change that takes place in the DNA nucleotide sequence. DNA can experience several different types of mutations. Substitution mutations are one common type. In a substitution mutation, one or more of the nucleotides in the DNA strand is replaced by another nucleotide. For example, an A may be replaced by a G, or a C may be replaced by a T. This substitution changes the codon that the nucleotide is part of. The amino acid specified by that codon changes, leading to an altered chemical and physical profile along the polypeptide chain. If the substituted amino acid possesses dramatically different physicochemical properties from the native amino acid, the polypeptide folds improperly. This improper folding impacts the polypeptide, and hence yields a protein with reduced or even lost function. Most mutations harm cellular health because they significantly and negatively impact protein structure and function.

Qualitatively, the genetic code appears constructed to minimize errors that result from substitution mutations. The genetic code's error-minimization properties are actually more dramatic than these results indicate. When researchers calculated the error-minimization capacity of one million randomly generated genetic codes, they discovered that the error-minimization values formed a distribution where the naturally occurring genetic code's capacity occurred outside the distribution. Researchers estimate the existence of 10 18 possible genetic codes possessing the same type and degree of redundancy as the universal genetic code. All of these codes fall within the error-minimization distribution. This finding means that of 10 18 possible genetic codes, few, if any, have an error-minimization capacity that approaches the code found universally in nature.

Even if the genetic code could change gradually over time to yield a set of rules that allowed for maximum error-minimization capacity, is there enough time for this process to occur? Biophysicist Hubert Yockey has addressed this question. He calculates that natural selection would have to explore 1.40 x 10 70 different genetic codes to hit upon the universal genetic code found in nature. Yockey estimates the maximum time available for the code to originate as 6.3 x 10 15 seconds. Put simply, natural selection lacks adequate time to find the universal genetic code. It would have to evaluate about 10 54 codes per second.

The genetic code—the set of rules used by the cell to translate information stored in DNA into the information used by polypeptides—possesses a virtually unique optimality in its capacity to resist errors caused by mutation. The genetic code in every way defies explanation as a frozen accident produced by random biochemical events, or as the fortuitous outcome of an evolutionary process directed by the blind forces of natural selection. Genetic code evolution would be catastrophic for the cell. Given the rapidity of life's origin, time is too short for natural selection to come across the well-designed universal genetic code found in nature. The genetic code seemingly originates at the time life first appears on Earth. All this evidence dictates the conclusion that an Intelligent Designer is responsible for the genetic code.

Plethoras of new genomes are not forming and certainly not enmasse by manifold means as you are suggesting. Get a grip.

ageofknowledge wrote:Plethoras of new genomes are not forming and certainly not enmasse by manifold means as you are suggesting. Get a grip.

Was this aimed at me? By "new genomes" I meant specifically the genome of individuals that include a new gene (as no one could have had that genotype before the emergence of a gene, it's fair to call the genome "new"). And we know that genotypes which include a beneficial new gene quickly become prevalent or dominant within a population.

Have you got a source for the research you quoted in your last post? Cheers dude.

ETA - Do you find it interesting that god saw fit to include redundancy in DNA as opposed to, say, a molecule that replicates perfectly? If that were the case then each species really would be limited to only the genes available within the genepool but combined in novel ways, and I rather fancy that we wouldn't be having this discussion.

qqMOARpewpew wrote:Speciation takes separated populations tens of thousands of years.

Speciation is simply variations within a kind and is not evolution. Remember the evolution religion preaches that one kind changes to another. This has never been reproduced by experimentation and therefore is false or at best improvable. It is not science. Anyone can daydream about something that might happen. Science requires reproducing through experimentation.

Oh, and you are mistaken about the 10k years part too...

Speedy species surprise by David Catchpoole and Carl Wieland wrote:a study of house mice in Madeira (thought to have been introduced to the island following 15th century Portuguese settlement) has found that 'several reproductively isolated chromosomal races' (in effect, new 'species') have appeared in less than 500 years.

In all of these instances, the speedy changes have nothing to do with the production of any new genes by mutation (the imagined mechanism of molecules-to-man evolution), but result mostly from selection of genes that already exist. Here we have real, observed evidence that (downhill) adaptive formation of new forms and species from the one created kind can take place rapidly. It doesn't need millions of years.

Shouldn't evolutionists rejoice, and creationists despair, at all this observed change? Hardly. Informed creationists have long stressed that natural selection can easily cause major variation in short time periods, by acting on the created genetic information already present. But this does not support the idea of evolution in the molecules-to-man sense, because no new information has been added.

http://creation.com/brisk-biters wrote:About 100 years ago, bird-biting mosquitoes called Culex pipiens entered the tunnels then being dug for the London Underground (the 'Tube'). Cut off from their normal diet, they changed their habits to feed on rats and, when available, human beings.
...
This may even be 'the general mechanism for speciation in all multi-cellular creatures' (by making it impossible to 'back-breed' with a parent population). Graves says, 'We thought it took millions of years of long-term selection for a jumping gene to be activated. We've now shown that it can happen maybe in five minutes after fertilization.' These are exciting times to be a creationist.

qqMOARpewpew wrote:If we found thousands and thousands of angel fossils god would be science, but we haven't.

Umm,, what??? Fossils show that something was alive and now it is dead. The rest is just a religious belief. I quote myself again and maybe it will sink in this time.

CharlieB wrote:A valid scientific theory must be able to be proved or disproved by experimentation. No one says they believe in gravity. Gravity is a proven fact.

qqMOARpewpew wrote:I'm not going to try to convince you that evolution happens, I don't have any desire to, believe whatever you wish.

It's too bad that school children don't get that right to believe in what they want. They have to endure the evolution religion or receive a lower grade.

qqMOARpewpew wrote:Evolution is no more a religion than atheism. I'm sure you think atheism is a religion too so I figure this works for the two of us.

That is a strange way to say something. Atheism is a religion, just like Buddhism is a religion. Are you trying to say evolution is a religious belief? Please have the courage to say so. I know you can do it

CharlieB wrote:Speciation is simply variations within a kind and is not evolution. Remember the evolution religion preaches that one kind changes to another.

What's a kind? I've never read any research that "preached" or even talked about one kind changing into another.

qqMOARpewpew wrote:I'm not going to try to convince you that evolution happens, I don't have any desire to, believe whatever you wish.

It's too bad that school children don't get that right to believe in what they want. They have to endure the evolution religion or receive a lower grade.

Not true, you can send your children to Christian school, or teach them at home, or move to another country without public schooling and work your child on the land. Or you can brain wash your kids into thinking evolution is a religion and then send them to public school, while continuing to force creationism into their head.

qqMOARpewpew wrote:Evolution is no more a religion than atheism. I'm sure you think atheism is a religion too so I figure this works for the two of us.

That is a strange way to say something. Atheism is a religion, just like Buddhism is a religion. Are you trying to say evolution is a religious belief? Please have the courage to say so. I know you can do it

Religion: a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

Atheism and people who believe in evolution are both not religions in my view.

Your view isn't merriam webster's.

Main Entry: 1re·li·gious
Pronunciation: \ri-ˈli-jəs\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French religius, from Latin religiosus, from religio
Date: 13th century
1 : relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity
2 : of, relating to, or devoted to religious beliefs or observances <joined a religious order>
3 a : scrupulously and conscientiously faithful b : fervent, zealous
— re·li·gious·ly adverb

— re·li·gious·ness noun

CharlieB wrote: It's too bad that school children don't get that right to believe in what they want. They have to endure the evolution religion or receive a lower grade.

qqMOARpewpew wrote: Not true, you can send your children to Christian school, or teach them at home, or move to another country without public schooling and work your child on the land. Or you can brain wash your kids into thinking evolution is a religion and then send them to public school, while continuing to force creationism into their head

Can you believe how selfish some evolutionist are? It is just fine to force people to pay for their religion but don't you dare teach something even remotely Christian in government schools. If someone can't see that forcing a citizen to pay for a religion they don't believe it in wrong I suggest they seek help. That is just plan wrong and everyone SHOULD know it. Have they ever heard of the 1st amendment? Remember all the fuss when the shoe was on the other foot?

As far as the "move to another country" nonsense, how about if the traitors that won't follow the Constitution move to a socialist country that better fits their ideology?

The interior of China would be an appropriate relocation destination for them. They could finally be one with a Marxist communist government and we wouldn't have to.