Evidence for God from Science

Kenny wrote:

Audie wrote:

Kenny wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:There would not be such a problem with evolution if it was said first understand that evolution is just a scientific theory and not true science but it isn't, it is taught as scientific truth in society.

Scientific theory IS true science.

Ken

I keep hearing of evolution being taught as "scientific truth".
Anything can happen, but Ive yet to see anyone produce an example
of that bit of stupidity.

Anecdotes of what someone thinks they heard years ago wont do.

I dont think anyone can meet the challenge. Your friend there sure
wont.

I have heard the overwhelming evidence that supports evolution makes it the closest thing to actual proof. Perhaps this is what they are talking about

Ken

I dont think so. Not when people call it the state religion, that they were told it is "truth", to never question it etc.
Back when I looked at his posts, Abc was all about how there is NO evidence; another on ig for his studied unreason and personal insults has it that "macro" has been "demolished".

Running thru is a thread of world wide conspiracy among scientists to discredit anyone who dares to question,
or at the very best, incompetence and unwillingness to see that ToE is bunk.

All in connection too with "mocking" Christianity. So I dont think this is anything but
a somewhat hallucinatory ideological stance.

I'd say your hypothesis is wrong.

Maybe one who thinks they were told that ToE is unquestionable fact
will come forth. Either they went to appallingly bad schools, or their memory
is faulty. Such teaching, as one claimed as the norm should be easy to verify.

I doubt anyone can cite anything but their anecdotes.

Considering how faulty and sketchy the knowledge these same people display is, when talking
evolution, I'd not accept their memory on that "truth" claim as anything but a, ah, "recovered" memor.,:D

Better evidence is needed, and I predict, will not be produced.

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Kenny wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Kenny wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:There would not be such a problem with evolution if it was said first understand that evolution is just a scientific theory and not true science but it isn't, it is taught as scientific truth in society.

Scientific theory IS true science.

Ken

That is what they say but evidence would make a scientific theory true science.I don't know if you've done it yourself but there are other areas in science where the evidence makes it true and you can look into it and find evidence for them but not when it comes to evolution.I mean it does seem like a lot of evidence for evolution but if you take the time to wade through it you realize the lack of evidence life evolves.I've done it and think other people should too.

Perhaps if you did some studying and learned what evolution actually is, you would realize evolution does happen.

Ken

I don't rationalize it I go be evidence.Does life evolve or not,what does the evidence show?It shows either life adapting that never evolves or variations in reproduction with no life evolving.Don't rationalize,that is another word for assume,instead go by the evidence.You know the insects adapt to survive the pesticide but do not evolve and yet you somehow assume they did.Why?

How do you know the insects adapted instead of evolved? Did you do the test to see it was adaption and not evolution? The people who did the test said it was evolution; how do you know they were lying? Do you even know the difference between adaption and evolution?

Ken

A person who cant figger the diff between "rationalize" and "assume" with a computer to help
isnt likely to be good with the biological concepts behind "adapt"
and "evolve", especially if they assume they already understand them and didnt even consult their computer
on that, either.

Audie wrote:A person who cant figger the diff between "rationalize" and "assume" with a computer to help
isnt likely to be good with the biological concepts behind "adapt"
and "evolve", especially if they assume they already understand them and didnt even consulted their computer
on that, either.

What about those who don't know the difference between "figure" and "figger"?

RickD wrote:

Audie wrote:A person who cant figger the diff between "rationalize" and "assume" with a computer to help
isnt likely to be good with the biological concepts behind "adapt"
and "evolve", especially if they assume they already understand them and didnt even consulted their computer
on that, either.

What about those who don't know the difference between "figure" and "figger"?

Well, I figgers that you'd be one of thems, if you actually have to ask.

Unfortunately -- higher education mocks those who acknowledge belief in the Bible. Theistic evolution is simply trying to put God into the mix somewhere in hopes of pacifying the evangelical Christians in the hope that 'they' will become more accepting of evolutionary thought.
It tends to put God in the position of being an old, grey-headed entity who has just enough strength to start the creation ball rolling and then lets everything happen.
But, honestly, there's far too much order and beauty to have just let 'nature' do it's thing. And man, himself, the brain, nervous system -- complexity Does show evidence For a Designer.

Kinds reproduce their own kind. We don't know exactly What God created -- simply that He created the various animals / water, land and sky -- we don't know many, either. Except that when He gave Noah the directions for building the ark -- it was big enough to accommodate everything that God planned to put in it.

People have done the in-breeding of animals / dogs / cats especially as well as cattle / horses.

Audie for some reason acts like science welcomes questioning and even criticism of evolution in the scientific community and I know she is going to ignore this example of what happens when you question or criticize or don't go along with scientific consensus evolution dogma.If you do these are the things that happen to you even if you are a biologist.
You are considered a scientific heretic!
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cro ... mysteries/
You are banned!
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=kAuxXvNVhgA

Science does not allow questioning evolution scientific dogma even when you are an evolutionist,it makes no difference if you stray too far from evolution dogma you are considered a scientific heretic and banned from even being heard.

abelcainsbrother wrote:Audie for some reason acts like science welcomes questioning and even criticism of evolution in the scientific community and I know she is going to ignore this example of what happens when you question or criticize or don't go along with scientific consensus evolution dogma.If you do these are the things that happen to you even if you are a biologist.
You are considered a scientific heretic!
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cro ... mysteries/
You are banned!
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=kAuxXvNVhgA

Science does not allow questioning evolution scientific dogma even when you are an evolutionist,it makes no difference if you stray too far from evolution dogma you are considered a scientific heretic and banned from even being heard.

Interesting... never heard of morphic resonance before.

Kurieuo wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:Audie for some reason acts like science welcomes questioning and even criticism of evolution in the scientific community and I know she is going to ignore this example of what happens when you question or criticize or don't go along with scientific consensus evolution dogma.If you do these are the things that happen to you even if you are a biologist.
You are considered a scientific heretic!
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cro ... mysteries/
You are banned!
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=kAuxXvNVhgA

Science does not allow questioning evolution scientific dogma even when you are an evolutionist,it makes no difference if you stray too far from evolution dogma you are considered a scientific heretic and banned from even being heard.

Interesting... never heard of morphic resonance before.

I wonder, K, if you agree that "higher education mocks...believe bible". In 6 and a half years of higher education,
with an atheist professor for a mother, and being around scientists most of my life, I personally never encountered
an example.

You ever encounter such a thing?

I never heard of "morphic resonance" either. It will either pan out, or wont.

My ex father in law, a Catholic / PhD geologist talked one time about his own dad, who
never did accept "continental drift". Plate tectonics, the Spokane Flood, were not accepted
readily. Radically new ideas in anything not music,art, science, religion, law, cars, anything, are not
accepted easily. That is human nature.

In science you get human nature, and you get the scientific process
in the way of quick acceptance. It has its positive and negative side.

One thing about it is, we cant all run lo here and lo there after every new idea.
Physics students love to sit about thinking of fantastical ideas. Some few of them
turn out to actually be revolutionary. It goes "heresy", acceptance, old hat establishment. Happens over and over.
EVERY scientist knows the pattern

The creoheroes think they made an original discovery to tell us about? .

The ideas have to be meticulously tested out in a way, to an extent our creoheros here have never remotely
approached with their slipshod, facile approach to "research".

In the end, the good ideas pass the test, and the bad ones fade out.
Science history is littered with the wreckage of fine theories like
"Phlogiston", that are long since tossed on the heap where our previously
mentioned crusading heroes hope evolution will land.

Those unfamiliar with science, standing outside the ivy halls they've never graced with
their presence, imagine all manner things going on in there. Where they've no idea at all, they
make things up or indulge in wild exaggerations and distortions.

And think they know more what is going on in there than I do? Offer me lessons?

Honestly, people in America! Hast thou no self knowledge at all? Heed thee not the
great Harry one, who sayeth "A man's gotta know his limitations"?

So what do you say, K?

Audie wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:Audie for some reason acts like science welcomes questioning and even criticism of evolution in the scientific community and I know she is going to ignore this example of what happens when you question or criticize or don't go along with scientific consensus evolution dogma.If you do these are the things that happen to you even if you are a biologist.
You are considered a scientific heretic!
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cro ... mysteries/
You are banned!
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=kAuxXvNVhgA

Science does not allow questioning evolution scientific dogma even when you are an evolutionist,it makes no difference if you stray too far from evolution dogma you are considered a scientific heretic and banned from even being heard.

Interesting... never heard of morphic resonance before.

I wonder, K, if you agree that "higher education mocks...believe bible". In 6 and a half years of higher education,
with an atheist professor for a mother, and being around scientists most of my life, I personally never encountered
an example.

You ever encounter such a thing?

I never heard of "morphic resonance" either. It will either pan out, or wont.

My ex father in law, a Catholic / PhD geologist talked one time about his own dad, who
never did accept "continental drift". Plate tectonics, the Spokane Flood, were not accepted
readily. Radically new ideas in anything not music,art, science, religion, law, cars, anything, are not
accepted easily. That is human nature.

In science you get human nature, and you get the scientific process
in the way of quick acceptance. It has its positive and negative side.

One thing about it is, we cant all run lo here and lo there after every new idea.
Physics students love to sit about thinking of fantastical ideas. Some few of them
turn out to actually be revolutionary. It goes "heresy", acceptance, old hat establishment. Happens over and over.
EVERY scientist knows the pattern

The creoheroes think they made an original discovery to tell us about? .

The ideas have to be meticulously tested out in a way, to an extent our creoheros here have never remotely
approached with their slipshod, facile approach to "research".

In the end, the good ideas pass the test, and the bad ones fade out.
Science history is littered with the wreckage of fine theories like
"Phlogiston", that are long since tossed on the heap where our previously
mentioned crusading heroes hope evolution will land.

Those unfamiliar with science, standing outside the ivy halls they've never graced with
their presence, imagine all manner things going on in there. Where they've no idea at all, they
make things up or indulge in wild exaggerations and distortions.

And think they know more what is going on in there than I do? Offer me lessons?

Honestly, people in America! Hast thou no self knowledge at all? Heed thee not the
great Harry one, who sayeth "A man's gotta know his limitations"?

So what do you say, K?

I actually agree with a lot of what you said and I'm not saying I agree with Sheldrake although it is interesting to me and based on my knowledge of dogs I tend to agree they can somehow sense their owner returning.Also Sheldrake based on the human genome project believes that DNA does not have the information in it to produce more,so he came up with,I'm going from memory right now but that there is an invisible force kind of like a magnet that pulls metal shavings to it that produces the things DNA produces.I'm going from memory so bear with me.

He does see problems in science and is actually trying to help evolution science solve the problems in it.

I'm not sure what you are asking precisely, but...

"Morphic resonance" is an interesting idea, along with that recent study into NDEs and there being a strong undercurrent in science that perhaps it has been unnecessarily restricted to a material world.
Perhaps there are other properties in the world, and theorems yet to be discovered which many have to this time hastily ruled out because they don't have a physical basis.
Just like we have particles in the physical world, perhaps what these things allude to (as with consciousness) are a different set of laws or "particles" at work in the fabric of our natural world.
Maybe one day scientists will be discussing the "theory of telos" inherent in the natural fabric of our world, which necessarily causes both the physical and consciousness to bubble out.
Of course to me, such evidences God, but then there are many bright minds who don't believe in God who I see trying to explain such things already in a different way.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "creoheroes", but when I read this and similar language I see nostrils.
There have been many renown creation-believing scientists throughout time: Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Newton, Boyle, and Pascal
Then Georges Lemaitre recently discussed elsewhere. And what of your father-in-law, a Catholic / PhD geologist.
Given apparently 50% of scientists believe in God or some higher being, then I'm sure you'd have many "creoheroes".
In the world of science though, who cares? What's it got to do with anything.

Are you trying to make a statement about one's intellect and belief in creation? I don't know the point.
If we're going to go that end, then I'm happy to make a mockery of many Atheists as I once delighted of doing in the past.
But, for what reason? There are all sorts on both sides, and it doesn't really matter to truth who has the better minds.

Re: in science you get human nature indeed.
Often influencing the scientific process that is grounded in philosophical assumptions.

So what do I say?
I'm not sure what you want me to say, but I suppose everything previous.

K, its not that obscure, to me; I wrote it.

I will try again, with an actual keyboard.

abelcainsbrother wrote:Audie for some reason acts like science welcomes questioning and even criticism of evolution in the scientific community and I know she is going to ignore this example of what happens when you question or criticize or don't go along with scientific consensus evolution dogma.If you do these are the things that happen to you even if you are a biologist.
You are considered a scientific heretic!
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cro ... mysteries/
You are banned!
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=kAuxXvNVhgA

Science does not allow questioning evolution scientific dogma even when you are an evolutionist,it makes no difference if you stray too far from evolution dogma you are considered a scientific heretic and banned from even being heard.

Science has a rich history of allowing once believed theories to become obsolete and discarded after proven wrong. Why do you feel an exception is being made for evolution?

Ken

Kenny wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:Audie for some reason acts like science welcomes questioning and even criticism of evolution in the scientific community and I know she is going to ignore this example of what happens when you question or criticize or don't go along with scientific consensus evolution dogma.If you do these are the things that happen to you even if you are a biologist.
You are considered a scientific heretic!
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cro ... mysteries/
You are banned!
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=kAuxXvNVhgA

Science does not allow questioning evolution scientific dogma even when you are an evolutionist,it makes no difference if you stray too far from evolution dogma you are considered a scientific heretic and banned from even being heard.

Science has a rich history of allowing once believed theories to become obsolete and discarded after proven wrong. Why do you feel an exception is being made for evolution?

Ken

There are many reasons but off the top of my head the Mito-Eve theory tells me they refuse to let go of the idea life evolves.

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Kenny wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:Audie for some reason acts like science welcomes questioning and even criticism of evolution in the scientific community and I know she is going to ignore this example of what happens when you question or criticize or don't go along with scientific consensus evolution dogma.If you do these are the things that happen to you even if you are a biologist.
You are considered a scientific heretic!
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cro ... mysteries/
You are banned!
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=kAuxXvNVhgA

Science does not allow questioning evolution scientific dogma even when you are an evolutionist,it makes no difference if you stray too far from evolution dogma you are considered a scientific heretic and banned from even being heard.

Science has a rich history of allowing once believed theories to become obsolete and discarded after proven wrong. Why do you feel an exception is being made for evolution?

Ken

There are many reasons but off the top of my head the Mito-Eve theory tells me they refuse to let go of the idea life evolves.

What evidence points to this theory and how does it show life does not evolve?

Ken