Evidence for God from Science

RickD wrote:

Audie wrote:

RickD wrote:

crochet wrote:
And, of Course it has to do with evolution. Evolution is based on happenstance. This world is Not from happenstance. But a Designer -- an Intelligent One.

Crochet,

That's simply not accurate. Evolution does not equal Godless happenstance. That's another misrepresentation by certain people, as part of presenting an either/or false dichotomy. It's just dishonest rhetoric.

And evolution is not "the world".

Audie,

I think crochet means the world, and the life in it.

Could be, I have a hard time understanding what she means. Fair, I guess; she evinces little
sign she knows what I am talking about.

Audie wrote:

RickD wrote:

Audie wrote:

RickD wrote:

crochet wrote:
And, of Course it has to do with evolution. Evolution is based on happenstance. This world is Not from happenstance. But a Designer -- an Intelligent One.

Crochet,

That's simply not accurate. Evolution does not equal Godless happenstance. That's another misrepresentation by certain people, as part of presenting an either/or false dichotomy. It's just dishonest rhetoric.

And evolution is not "the world".

Audie,

I think crochet means the world, and the life in it.

Could be, I have a hard time understanding what she means. Fair, I guess; she evinces little
sign she knows what I am talking about.

I realize you have a hard time understanding sometimes. That's why I type slower when responding to you.

RickD. L O L -- typing slower helps 'her' understand better? I should try That, then.

The question Is -- What is an " evolutionist " ? Answer -- a person who believes in evolution.
Could it really be That simple? So - maybe an understanding of what evolution Is?

So RickD -- educate me. Feel free to type quickly.

crochet1949 wrote:RickD. L O L -- typing slower helps 'her' understand better? I should try That, then.

The question Is -- What is an " evolutionist " ? Answer -- a person who believes in evolution.
Could it really be That simple? So - maybe an understanding of what evolution Is?

So RickD -- educate me. Feel free to type quickly.

Yes it really is that simple. Whether an atheist, agnostic, Christian, or whoever.

But narrowing down what evolution actually is, is not so simple. Unless you want to go with the basic definition of evolution-change over time.

Okay -- change over time. But what is it that's changing? Doesn't a person need to have something concrete to start With in order to see how 'it' has changed over time?

And what I've noticed is that the narrowing down what evolution actually Is -- Is Not simple. What makes it so complicated?

To Me, it's made sense to take life from where we are Now and trace backwards. We, people, look like People. With a great deal of variation / but still People. And the world of animals, birds, etc. look like themselves. A person can learn a great deal just from observing nature.

Now You can respond

hughfarey wrote:

crochet1949 wrote:Who knows -- you and I Could have a little ape/chimp DNA in us instead of being a complete human being. And, after all, sometimes kids Can be 'little monkeys' when they're growing up.

Almost all our DNA is exactly the same as that of chimpanzees. A fair amount is the same as a chicken, or a goldfish, or a daffodil...

Really? I believe a blood transfusion would prove that false.Like a human getting a blood transfusion from a Chimpanzee or the other way around. Only humans can give blood to other humans because the DNA is exactly the same.Different blood types does not change anything.A blood transfusion from a chimpanzee to a human would kill the human. DNA is similar though because God knew we could produce medicines for man,like how scientists use rats in a lab to test different medicines,etc for man.

Monkeys for Uncles
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L6Ax14PCroY

abelcainsbrother wrote:

hughfarey wrote:Almost all our DNA is exactly the same as that of chimpanzees. A fair amount is the same as a chicken, or a goldfish, or a daffodil...

Really? I believe a blood transfusion would prove that false.

I dare say you do. But you would be wrong.

crochet1949 wrote:Okay -- change over time. But what is it that's changing? Doesn't a person need to have something concrete to start With in order to see how 'it' has changed over time?

And what I've noticed is that the narrowing down what evolution actually Is -- Is Not simple. What makes it so complicated?

To Me, it's made sense to take life from where we are Now and trace backwards. We, people, look like People. With a great deal of variation / but still People. And the world of animals, birds, etc. look like themselves. A person can learn a great deal just from observing nature.

Now You can respond

As far as what's changing over time, it depends on what kind of evolution we are talking about. In this case, it's biological evolution. Life on earth changing over time.

You'd be better off if an evolutionist could answer for you. I'm not one who believes all of what the ToE says.

RickD. What all kinds of evolution Are there?

So -- life on earth changing over time. What causes it To change? Why does it Need to change?

crochet1949 wrote:RickD. What all kinds of evolution Are there?

Stellar evolution, for one.

crochet1949 wrote:So -- life on earth changing over time. What causes it To change? Why does it Need to change?

That's the question at hand. I'd say that whatever kinds of evolution are true, it was "pre-programmed" by God.

Others who don't believe in God, would answer differently.

So stellar evolution is one kind.

And that what ever kinds of evolution exist -- it was pre-programmed by God. Define pre-programmed.

Why would God give us the Genesis creation description and then actually use another method.

crochet1949 wrote:So stellar evolution is one kind.

And that what ever kinds of evolution exist -- it was pre-programmed by God. Define pre-programmed.

Why would God give us the Genesis creation description and then actually use another method.

Do you think it's possible that your interpretation of the Genesis creation account may be wrong? Or are you going to stick to your interpretation no matter what? Is your interpretation of the creation account so vital to your faith, that if you are wrong, your faith would be destroyed?

Crotchet, I'm your man. I am a practising teaching scientist, specialising in evolution and cladistics, and if you want to understand what it is that you don't believe in, I can help. Evolution is a hypothesised process by which the the millions of different forms that populated the world in the past, and populate it today, came to be. This process is simple reproductive descent, coupled to changes in DNA caused by radiation.

Your last question about this was "why does it need to change?" The answer is that as the tectonic forces of the earth, changes in solar radiation, and pressures within a population result in changes to the environments of the earth, so the organisms inhabiting them change to fit themselves better to their new circumstances.

Please continue to inquire if you want to know more about evolution, and I hope you will do your best to educate me better about the theory of creation. I have always wondered, for example, how creationists explain the difference between Chapter 1 of Genesis, where man is almost the last organism to be created, and Chapter 2, where he is one of the first. In plain English, these two accounts are plainly contradictory, so, since they do not need to be 'interpreted' into meaning something different, how do you reconcile them?