Evidence for God from Science

Danieltwotwenty wrote:Interesting thanks K.

I think it has cleared up some of what I was thinking, I don't have anything further to add, I think we just interpret the evidence differently and I think I understand your view more now.

I do still wonder if there has been any new unique animals that have come onto the scene after modern humans have been known to exist for, it would indeed provide some very useful information.

It'll grow you on I'm sure.

You're in a privileged position in that you don't need to ground yourself to a pure naturalistic evolution.
So I'm sure you'll especially be able to see weaknesses where some things may not add up entirely.
Then you've got a viable model that is at least possible as far as Scripture is concerned.

Some might call what I believe in Theistic Evolution. Heck, some think believing in the "Big Bang" and an old earth and universe is evolution.
Terms aside, as far as Scripture is concerned I see the point one diverges from Scripture is when God's direct hand is removed throughout creation.

So for example, those of Theistic Evolution persuasion believe God sets everything up from the start, planning everything to unfold naturally (except perhaps Neo-X who sees no guiding necessary and I've stated perplexes me, but I think I understand his reasons...).

On the other hand, God directly creating and drawing from pre-existing matter (as God did with Adam and Eve i.e,. dust and Adam's side) -- such still seems compatible with Scripture.

I'm feeling though, from the way Morny and yourself have not really pushed back at me, that what is strongly believed in re: evolution is actually common descent.
This is what is being associated with "evolution" and I hope I've shown that is possible that is can be associated with God's direct creation (even if such may not be accepted).

Such to me highlights the importance of understanding what one does or doesn't classify as evolution.
So digging into the details would be more beneficial than declaring outright whether one does or doesn't accept evolution.

Proinsias wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:Consider the theory of evolution as a reasonable explanation for the variety of life the problem first is that the theory of evolution has always been about life evolving.I don't think anybody denies the variety of life as we can see it but this is just the different kinds of life reproducing the same kind of life.Dogs are a great example of variety of life and variations of reproduction but dogs produce dogs with no evidence of them evolving into some other kind of life.It is the same with Darwin's finches they are still finches and no signs of evolving. I'm looking for evidence life evolves and haven't found any.Dogs were bread from wolves long before Darwin so animal breeders were already aware of variations in reproduction and they can even breed for specific traits but your still going to have a dog and I do not understand how this became evidence for the theory life evolves.
What to you convinces you life evolves,what have I overlooked?

I suspect you've not overlooked much. I find Darwin's account of generational change and variety alongside the selective pressures of the environment reasonable, the examples of dog breeding you mentioned illustrates this nicely; if we select for particular characteristics over several generations we can see inheritance in action in the variety of dog breeds out there, we see that small differences can be capitalized upon and exaggerated. Mendel's pea experiments gives us a more formal method for predicting the ratios in which certain traits will appear from a breeding pair. We can observe a few generations of pea plants then trace dominant and recessive characteristics, or find those which contrast or compliment each other. The account of both Darwin and Mendel, in attempting to explain small differences in the form of finch beaks or flower colour in peas from parent to offspring, requires a mechanism.

abelcainsbrother
But as far as I've seen all they are really showing is reproduction and yet trying to see evolution where there is none.Look at the pea evidence and you'll see they start out with peas and still have peas,this is the same with dogs and Darwin's finches,showing different beak sizes of finches is not life evolving at all and yet these kinds of things are used as evidence for evolution and it is deception to me and it really hurts credibility with me and causes me to look even closer.Bacteria,viruses,finches,salamanders,frogs,etc it never evolves or shows any signs of evolving,yet they tell us it is or did.It is a lie as far as I can see.There is no evidence life evolves and so they focus on common descent,DNA,etc to try to back it up but it really doesn't as far as I can tell.All they are seeing is variations in reproduction or life adapting and yet trying to use this as evidence life evolves.

The mechanism Francis & Crick stumbled upon was DNA. Beyond giving us a physical mechanism with which to explain the inheritance models already given to us by Mendel it united the life sciences in a common language. Beyond tracing a line from parent to offspring it quickly became obvious that huge swathes of life were operating on largely similar DNA, the general logic being that if parent and offspring can be said to be related by simply looking at the DNA then almost all life as we know it can be said to be related on the basis of it's DNA too.

abelcainsbrother
Similar DNA doesn't do much for me as far as evidence life evolves because I can see and observe reproduction and see for my self what DNA produces and all we see and observe is life reproducing the same kind of life with variation.Why should people trust a scientist that has never demonstrated life evolves,tell us life evolves because DNA is similar? Only they can see life evolving in their own mind.I don't know if you've ever looked into conspiracy theories and I have and evolution has all of the very same characteristics of a conspiracy theory where they are the only ones who know it and can see it and it is their job to inform you.

Kurieuo wrote:I'm feeling though, from the way Morny and yourself have not really pushed back at me, that what is strongly believed in re: evolution is actually common descent.

Not quite. Common descent is just the easiest accessible evolutionary idea for us normal folk. Simple idea, simple observations, simple reasoning, enormous explanatory power. A boilerplate for how to do science. Who wouldn't love that?!

Kurieuo wrote:You're in a privileged position in that you don't need to ground yourself to a pure naturalistic evolution.

Why not also have theistic or naturalistic gravity? Theistic chemistry? Naturalistic geology? Evolution makes people irrationally uncomfortable for a number of reasons. For example, who wants to literally be a cousin (albeit distant) to a bonobo? Well I don't want to be either, but I am. And that's pretty falootin' amazing.

Evolution makes people irrationally uncomfortable for a number of reasons. For example, who wants to literally be a cousin (albeit distant) to a bonobo? Well I don't want to be either, but I am. And that's pretty falootin' amazing

.

See, these kind of statements are what cause people a bit of grief.

Cousin to a bonobo? or any other primate?
Cousin, really?
No, not even close.
There is no relation between a human and any primate of a different species that we can use the terms we use when referring to family members.
If you go far enough back with common decent then humans are also "related" to pretty much everything on the plant that is carbon based OR even further, water based OR even further energy based.

A cousin is a relative with whom a person shares one or more common ancestors. In the general sense, cousins are two or more generations away from any common ancestor, thus distinguishing a cousin from an ancestor, descendant, sibling, aunt, uncle, niece, or nephew.

While we like to play loose with the words we use the fact is THAT is part of the problem.

We need to stop using words that mean a certain thing and apply them to other things just because they MIGHT convey what we HOPE is understanding.

Morny wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:I'm feeling though, from the way Morny and yourself have not really pushed back at me, that what is strongly believed in re: evolution is actually common descent.

Not quite. Common descent is just the easiest accessible evolutionary idea for us normal folk. Simple idea, simple observations, simple reasoning, enormous explanatory power. A boilerplate for how to do science. Who wouldn't love that?!

Yes, not quite. I know.
But, evidence for common descent is often presented as evidence for natural evolution over and against creation.
You're saying more though... below.

Morny wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:You're in a privileged position in that you don't need to ground yourself to a pure naturalistic evolution.

Why not also have theistic or naturalistic gravity? Theistic chemistry? Naturalistic geology? Evolution makes people irrationally uncomfortable for a number of reasons. For example, who wants to literally be a cousin (albeit distant) to a bonobo? Well I don't want to be either, but I am. And that's pretty falootin' amazing.

Exactly. Well, kind of exactly.
Given the issue isn't really one of where we descend from that defines evolution.
Direct intervention (creation) makes people irrationally uncomfortable too.
But, that line of argument goes nowhere really -- one's comfort is irrelevant to the truth of the matter, right?

Obviously both sides need to carry burden of proof. No one side is default.
That is, natural evolution vs God's direct intervention as I've been describing.

I have reasons I've withheld for why I reject a natural accounting.
Once you enter "the debate" then both sides knuckle down, so I've wanted to avoid that.
But, now I think the discussion has obviously progressed to this point. Only it's late/early morning here now so tomorrow perhaps...

Pushing the debate further, it leads into the even greater debated of Naturalism vs Theism.
And if one had good reason to believe God exists, then one needs to decide which makes the most sense given what we know.
Which I think is where D220 is at.

PaulSacramento wrote:There is no relation between a human and any primate of a different species that we can use the terms we use when referring to family members.

You haven't met my in-laws.

Morny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:There is no relation between a human and any primate of a different species that we can use the terms we use when referring to family members.

You haven't met my in-laws.

Morny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:There is no relation between a human and any primate of a different species that we can use the terms we use when referring to family members.

You haven't met my in-laws.

Now that's funny!

Isn't it amazing how even something such as a sense of humor is the direct result of completely naturalistic processes?!

Morny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:There is no relation between a human and any primate of a different species that we can use the terms we use when referring to family members.

You haven't met my in-laws.

Well played Sir !

Kurieuo wrote:
It'll grow you on I'm sure.

Possible evolve on me also.

You're in a privileged position in that you don't need to ground yourself to a pure naturalistic evolution.
So I'm sure you'll especially be able to see weaknesses where some things may not add up entirely.
Then you've got a viable model that is at least possible as far as Scripture is concerned.

I definitely see weakness in evolution as I do in creation theories.

Some might call what I believe in Theistic Evolution. Heck, some think believing in the "Big Bang" and an old earth and universe is evolution.
Terms aside, as far as Scripture is concerned I see the point one diverges from Scripture is when God's direct hand is removed throughout creation.

That's exactly how I feel, I mean if God IS existence then everything IS sustained by him, so matter what the mechanism he has used, ultimately he did it. Maybe we could call your position progressive evolution.

So for example, those of Theistic Evolution persuasion believe God sets everything up from the start, planning everything to unfold naturally (except perhaps Neo-X who sees no guiding necessary and I've stated perplexes me, but I think I understand his reasons...).

I am not sure I understand Neo's position either, possibly he could expand on it at some time, I actually think there may just be a misunderstanding.

On the other hand, God directly creating and drawing from pre-existing matter (as God did with Adam and Eve i.e,. dust and Adam's side) -- such still seems compatible with Scripture.

It is a very interesting concept and I can see how it fit's within the natural progression we see, I guess we may never know for sure, unless of course we can see an animal macro evolve in an experiment.

I'm feeling though, from the way Morny and yourself have not really pushed back at me, that what is strongly believed in re: evolution is actually common descent.
This is what is being associated with "evolution" and I hope I've shown that is possible that is can be associated with God's direct creation (even if such may not be accepted).

I am not pushing because, this isn't really that important, you know me, the only time I fire up is with people who are oppressing others with their narrow mindedness. I find you an other to be quite reasonable.

Such to me highlights the importance of understanding what one does or doesn't classify as evolution.
So digging into the details would be more beneficial than declaring outright whether one does or doesn't accept evolution.

The Bible says it was 6 days that he created the earth. For evolution to be true you would need more then that. I do not believe that genesis was written as a poem to be taken lightly. If it is a poem I believe it is a literal one and means what it says. Because all through out the bible when creation was talked about by other writers they wrote it as literal days not different times. So apparently all during that time period it was though to be literal day and they would know more than we would if it Moses meant literal day or not. And the fact that all life has similar characteristics . That just points to the fact that there was one creator that created all things and trees and plants being different than animals and people just means that life with plants and animals is different. God said he didn't let thing evolve. the bible said " Gen 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. So God made thing after its on kind. So if nothing else God kept evolution from happening.

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Proinsias wrote:I suspect you've not overlooked much. I find Darwin's account of generational change and variety alongside the selective pressures of the environment reasonable, the examples of dog breeding you mentioned illustrates this nicely; if we select for particular characteristics over several generations we can see inheritance in action in the variety of dog breeds out there, we see that small differences can be capitalized upon and exaggerated. Mendel's pea experiments gives us a more formal method for predicting the ratios in which certain traits will appear from a breeding pair. We can observe a few generations of pea plants then trace dominant and recessive characteristics, or find those which contrast or compliment each other. The account of both Darwin and Mendel, in attempting to explain small differences in the form of finch beaks or flower colour in peas from parent to offspring, requires a mechanism.

But as far as I've seen all they are really showing is reproduction and yet trying to see evolution where there is none.Look at the pea evidence and you'll see they start out with peas and still have peas,this is the same with dogs and Darwin's finches,showing different beak sizes of finches is not life evolving at all and yet these kinds of things are used as evidence for evolution and it is deception to me and it really hurts credibility with me and causes me to look even closer.Bacteria,viruses,finches,salamanders,frogs,etc it never evolves or shows any signs of evolving,yet they tell us it is or did.It is a lie as far as I can see.There is no evidence life evolves and so they focus on common descent,DNA,etc to try to back it up but it really doesn't as far as I can tell.All they are seeing is variations in reproduction or life adapting and yet trying to use this as evidence life evolves.

Fair enough, seems we both look at the same sort of examples and come to different conclusions. I see the variety in dog breeds or pea flowers and have little issue making a hop, skip and jump to the notion that the same basic mechanism is responsible for the variety of life in general.

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Proinsias wrote:The mechanism Francis & Crick stumbled upon was DNA. Beyond giving us a physical mechanism with which to explain the inheritance models already given to us by Mendel it united the life sciences in a common language. Beyond tracing a line from parent to offspring it quickly became obvious that huge swathes of life were operating on largely similar DNA, the general logic being that if parent and offspring can be said to be related by simply looking at the DNA then almost all life as we know it can be said to be related on the basis of it's DNA too.

Similar DNA doesn't do much for me as far as evidence life evolves because I can see and observe reproduction and see for my self what DNA produces and all we see and observe is life reproducing the same kind of life with variation.Why should people trust a scientist that has never demonstrated life evolves,tell us life evolves because DNA is similar? Only they can see life evolving in their own mind.I don't know if you've ever looked into conspiracy theories and I have and evolution has all of the very same characteristics of a conspiracy theory where they are the only ones who know it and can see it and it is their job to inform you.

I've read a fair few conspiracy theories in my time. I'm sitting within a few feet of almost 100 issues of X-Factor magazine, I've seen/read a worrying amount of David Icke & still listen to the old Church of SubGenius radio shows, I've read most of Graham Hancock's stuff, Von Daniken, Robert Temple Sirius Mystery, The Illuminatus! Trilogy and a whole bunch of stuff of far lower quality. I've also grown cultures in labs, counted traits in generations of fruit flies and battered hundreds of snails to death with hammers to monitor parasite population variation. Bearing the hallmarks of conspiracy doesn't really bother me and I don't put more faith or trust in scientists than I would any other professional commenting on their field.

jpbg33 wrote:The Bible says it was 6 days that he created the earth. For evolution to be true you would need more then that. I do not believe that genesis was written as a poem to be taken lightly. If it is a poem I believe it is a literal one and means what it says. Because all through out the bible when creation was talked about by other writers they wrote it as literal days not different times. So apparently all during that time period it was though to be literal day and they would know more than we would if it Moses meant literal day or not. And the fact that all life has similar characteristics . That just points to the fact that there was one creator that created all things and trees and plants being different than animals and people just means that life with plants and animals is different. God said he didn't let thing evolve. the bible said " Gen 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. So God made thing after its on kind. So if nothing else God kept evolution from happening.

Have you ever thought about "And God made the beast of the earth after his kind and cattle after their kind,and everything that creepeth upon the earth after his kind"?

Think about what that says and means,meditate on it for awhile and it might open up a new perspective.Because to me it is saying that God made the life in this world after the life that existed that perished in the former world. If this is true then you are right there was no evolving going on of the life that lived in the former world and the life in this world,and there was a gap of time.I used to overlook "God made after their kind"when I read Genesis. I think the only other way we could interpret it is to think God made it after his kind or their kind pointing to the trinity but this does not seem right because only man was created in God's image.

But also notice the word made instead of create too. When God creates nothing is there,but when God makes something the materials are already there to make it which is why some see God restoring his creation in Genesis 1.

You are reading in to it. It says he made earth then took from earth that he made and made everything from that. After its kind is referring to the fact that God made different types of animals then these animals produced more animals just like them selves. We are humans and if we read into something we get it wrong most of the time. So if God said he did it in 6 day. That is what I believe happened. And if that is the best way for God to explain it to humans then evolution is wrong.

Oh this is going to be interesting ACB has met his match and so has jpbg, two people who think their interpretation of scripture is equal to God's word itself.