Evidence for God from Science

neo-x wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:I could become a theistic evolutionist but I don't because of a lack of evidence life evolves.Plus the Gap theory I believe means evolution cannot be true because there is no way the life that perished when the former world perished evolved into the life in this world.I don't like it that the evidence that was first discovered by Christians who started modern science was hyjacked away and made to fit into evolution because Charles Darwin believed life evolved and made it fit into the scientific evidence of the time and evolutionists have had 150 years to demonstrate life evolves and never have.

Abel, just because you aren't convinced doesn't mean evolution is falsified. Only saying this because you seem to be tooting your horn for the hundred time now to no effect. I just find it amusing that you keep repeating this as it was so obvious. It isn't and is far from convincing. I am absolutely convinced of the evidence.

As I noted earlier, saying there is not evidence for "macro" evolution is akin to saying there is no evidence for the Roman Empire. It is equally false.

Id think a person who believes in the Christian god would feel it was incumbent upon them to avoid falsehoods of every sort, perhaps most especially those concerning the earth and what the purported creator thereof has done with it.

But maybe their God is so merciful that deliberate negligence is not considered any sort of sin.

Audie wrote:
Nobody here denies that evolution is a fact. Do they? Some think it is limited to
"micro" but the word "evolution" is in there. Anyone here deny that some kind type sort amount degree or variety of evolution takes place?

The claim has been that the theory of evolution is a state religion, not to be questioned, and is taught as fact.

If it was your experience that ToE, or any other theory was taught as fact, then you went to a shabby excuse for a school, or at least, one with science teacher who should not have been there.

The claim is that it is the standard way it is taught, that people are indoctrinated with this idea that ToE is True, and unassailable.

Of course some of us deny evolution is a fact. I don't have a problem with certain kinds of evolution. I certainly don't think molecules to man is a fact.

You do, I trust, understand that "evolution" and, " the theory of evolution" are NOT the same thing?

To some people, one necessarily follows the other. And that is what I disagree with.

RickD wrote:

Audie wrote:
Nobody here denies that evolution is a fact. Do they? Some think it is limited to
"micro" but the word "evolution" is in there. Anyone here deny that some kind type sort amount degree or variety of evolution takes place?

The claim has been that the theory of evolution is a state religion, not to be questioned, and is taught as fact.

If it was your experience that ToE, or any other theory was taught as fact, then you went to a shabby excuse for a school, or at least, one with science teacher who should not have been there.

The claim is that it is the standard way it is taught, that people are indoctrinated with this idea that ToE is True, and unassailable.

Of course some of us deny evolution is a fact. I don't have a problem with certain kinds of evolution. I certainly don't think molecules to man is a fact.

You do, I trust, understand that "evolution" and, " the theory of evolution" are NOT the same thing?

To some people, one necessarily follows the other. And that is what I disagree with.

We is talkin' past eachother. Nobody denies, (I hope...??) that some sort of evolution is real, and factual, etc.

"Evolution" and "theory of evolution" are not the same.

No two people would agree on all aspects of evolution, I suppose.

How things are "to some people" is what Im hoping we can correct. I say its total BS that anyone here received formal education to the effect that ToE is a FACT, a state religion, or is unassailable, not to be questioned.


Now, did you ever encounter anyone formally teaching the theory of evolution is a fact, or presenting it as some sort of state religion, or, as something that simply can and must not be challenged?


What is your take, on that one particular narrow topic?

Audie wrote:

RickD wrote:

Audie wrote:
Nobody here denies that evolution is a fact. Do they? Some think it is limited to
"micro" but the word "evolution" is in there. Anyone here deny that some kind type sort amount degree or variety of evolution takes place?

The claim has been that the theory of evolution is a state religion, not to be questioned, and is taught as fact.

If it was your experience that ToE, or any other theory was taught as fact, then you went to a shabby excuse for a school, or at least, one with science teacher who should not have been there.

The claim is that it is the standard way it is taught, that people are indoctrinated with this idea that ToE is True, and unassailable.

Of course some of us deny evolution is a fact. I don't have a problem with certain kinds of evolution. I certainly don't think molecules to man is a fact.

You do, I trust, understand that "evolution" and, " the theory of evolution" are NOT the same thing?

To some people, one necessarily follows the other. And that is what I disagree with.

We is talkin' past eachother. Nobody denies, (I hope...??) that some sort of evolution is real, and factual, etc.

"Evolution" and "theory of evolution" are not the same.

No two people would agree on all aspects of evolution, I suppose.

How things are "to some people" is what Im hoping we can correct. I say its total BS that anyone here received formal education to the effect that ToE is a FACT, a state religion, or is unassailable, not to be questioned.


Now, did you ever encounter anyone formally teaching the theory of evolution is a fact, or presenting it as some sort of state religion, or, as something that simply can and must not be challenged?


What is your take, on that one particular narrow topic?

Personally, I haven't encountered that. But, I didn't go to college. And as far as I can remember, I was never taught evolution in High School.

RickD wrote:

Audie wrote:

RickD wrote:

Audie wrote:
Nobody here denies that evolution is a fact. Do they? Some think it is limited to
"micro" but the word "evolution" is in there. Anyone here deny that some kind type sort amount degree or variety of evolution takes place?

The claim has been that the theory of evolution is a state religion, not to be questioned, and is taught as fact.

If it was your experience that ToE, or any other theory was taught as fact, then you went to a shabby excuse for a school, or at least, one with science teacher who should not have been there.

The claim is that it is the standard way it is taught, that people are indoctrinated with this idea that ToE is True, and unassailable.

Of course some of us deny evolution is a fact. I don't have a problem with certain kinds of evolution. I certainly don't think molecules to man is a fact.

You do, I trust, understand that "evolution" and, " the theory of evolution" are NOT the same thing?

To some people, one necessarily follows the other. And that is what I disagree with.

We is talkin' past eachother. Nobody denies, (I hope...??) that some sort of evolution is real, and factual, etc.

"Evolution" and "theory of evolution" are not the same.

No two people would agree on all aspects of evolution, I suppose.

How things are "to some people" is what Im hoping we can correct. I say its total BS that anyone here received formal education to the effect that ToE is a FACT, a state religion, or is unassailable, not to be questioned.


Now, did you ever encounter anyone formally teaching the theory of evolution is a fact, or presenting it as some sort of state religion, or, as something that simply can and must not be challenged?


What is your take, on that one particular narrow topic?

Personally, I haven't encountered that. But, I didn't go to college. And as far as I can remember, I was never taught evolution in High School.

I dont think anyone has. But I could be wrong, science is often, like other subjects, taught badly.

I hope there is no University that careless in who they hire or what they teach.

Rick: Personally, I haven't encountered that. But, I didn't go to college. And as far as I can remember, I was never taught evolution in High School

Heck, for that matter, Rick probably doesn't even remember "high" school!

Philip wrote:

Rick: Personally, I haven't encountered that. But, I didn't go to college. And as far as I can remember, I was never taught evolution in High School

Heck, for that matter, Rick probably doesn't even remember "high" school!

So how about you, was the theory of evolution taught as fact that must never be questioned in any institution you attended?

Philip wrote:

Rick: Personally, I haven't encountered that. But, I didn't go to college. And as far as I can remember, I was never taught evolution in High School

Heck, for that matter, Rick probably doesn't even remember "high" school!

I remember 30 years ago. I just can't remember what my wife told me this morning. She was going on and on about me not listening to her, or something like that. I'm not sure exactly what she was talking about because I wasn't paying attention.

RickD wrote:

Philip wrote:

Rick: Personally, I haven't encountered that. But, I didn't go to college. And as far as I can remember, I was never taught evolution in High School

Heck, for that matter, Rick probably doesn't even remember "high" school!

I remember 30 years ago. I just can't remember what my wife told me this morning. She was going on and on about me not listening to her, or something like that. I'm not sure exactly what she was talking about because I wasn't paying attention.

Caption is, "Perhaps THIS will refresh your memory"

@Audie, I don't see the relevancy of your question.
Your questions are also irrelevant to me and I think you know that.
I'm just seeing more of your nostrils so I'm out.

RickD wrote:

kenny wrote:
Really? I am going to ask you the same question again! How do you know in the example I gave you about insects and plants evolving to pesticides, that it was just variations of adapting and not actually evolution? Were you there during the experiment? They said it was evolution; how do you know they were lying? Do you even know the difference between evolution and adaption?
Try to answer the question this time; if you choose not to please don't return some other day claiming you did answer the question.

Ken,

Abel has been consistent on this point. Insects adapting to pesticides is not insects becoming something besides insects.

His point is that there is no proof that any life has evolved into another kind of life. There's no proof that dinosaurs evolved into birds. What Abel calls adaptation, is not shown that it leads to evolution(dinosaurs to birds, etc.)

Don't focus on the terms Abel is using. Focus on the point he's making.

In other words, Abel is saying that we see micro evolution. But we don't see macroevolution on the scale of dinosaurs evolving into birds.

As it is, you guys are just talking over each other.

I gave him a couple of examples of Micro Evolution;

* mosquitoes evolving resistant to DDT which foiled a world wide attempt to cure malaria,
*and insects in agriculture evolving in a way that they were resistant to insecticide.

He said they did not evolve, they just adapted. Now as you know; adaption is when insects change to be better suited for their environment. Evolution is when they change to the point that the genetic structure and physical anatomy changes due to the environment.
In other words, he claimed in the examples I gave, the genetic structure and physical anatomy did not change. I asked him how did he know; was he there during the experiment. I doubt he was; I suspect he was just making empty claims.

If he wants to agree with micro, but disagree with macro; fine! Then say it. But he doesn’t get to rename scientific terms because he doesn’t like the name.

Ken

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Kenny wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote: I would like to know why you seem to trust them so much?I mean I already showed you what kind of evidence they present as evidence life evolves

No you did not! I asked you specific questions and you ignored my question and went on to something else. I am still waiting for that response.

abelcainsbrother wrote: and explained why it is just variations in reproduction or adaptation they are using as evidence.

Really? I am going to ask you the same question again! How do you know in the example I gave you about insects and plants evolving to pesticides, that it was just variations of adapting and not actually evolution? Were you there during the experiment? They said it was evolution; how do you know they were lying? Do you even know the difference between evolution and adaption?
Try to answer the question this time; if you choose not to please don't return some other day claiming you did answer the question.

I already told you but you seem to ignore it.First look up the scientific definition for evolution,natural selection,micro evolution and macro, reproduction and adaptation then look at your evidence and you'll see it did not evolve.

Fair enough. Then show me the evidence that in the examples I gave, there was no genetic structure, or physical anatomy changes.

Ken

bippy123 wrote: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[/quote]

bippy123 wrote:Kenny, the fruit fly experiment was a massive failure for make evolution and we have never seen one case of macroevolution . Lens kind also tried it with his bacteria.

I am not familiar with the Fruit fly experiment; and I was not discussing macro evolution.

bippy123 wrote:Don't you think that someth I need like this should be empirically observable for these biologists to call evolution a scientific fact?

Do crime scene investigators need to be present during the crime to figure out what happened? Sometimes evidence left behind is all they need to figure out what happened. BTW; evolution is a scientific theory.

bippy123 wrote:I find it amazing that you would trust an opinion over empirically observed scientific fact.

When have I done this?

bippy123 wrote:What we do observe in animals is a seemingly inherited type of limit.
No matter how much we try dogs remain dogs, cats remain cats. Sure we can interbreed small dogs with bigger dogs they always stay dogs.

Species change isn’t necessary for evolution to take place.

bippy123 wrote:As a person who believes in science don't you think that you should demand more then opinions?

How do you know they are aren’t following the evidence; but are only giving opinions?

Kurieuo wrote:@Audie, I don't see the relevancy of your question.
Your questions are also irrelevant to me and I think you know that.
I'm just seeing more of your nostrils so I'm out.

Huh?

Ah, the total pointlessness of endless arguing about evolution! It's making me, sleepy, verrrryyyyy.............. :sleep:snooze-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z