Evidence for God from Science

Cougar: You never answered my question.

Cougar wrote:Roy Lennigan,

Do you have the same negative feelings towards all scientists in history or just Darwin?

All scientists who refute the spirituality God, and who attempt to decieve by 'logical analysis' are equally sinful in my eyes. They try to teach by telling directly, not by showing how to learn.

I'm sorry Mystical! Could you ask it again, I can't find what your question was.

Roy,

Who are these scientists that attempt to refute the spirituality of God? Is Galileo still blasphemous in your eyes? What do you mean by logical analysis?

I don't know and have never read any scientific article that refutes the spirituality of God. It isn't even discussed in scientific articles... it is not an appropriate place for it.

I would like to call out your ignorance about science, because the entire point of writing scientific articles is to teach other people what you did and what your results were. Most are like a freaking cook book, showing a step-by-step process of the hypothesis, what was done, how it was done, what results were obtained, what the results mean, and future discussion for the topic. However, a good scientific article does delve any further than what results can show, which leaves questions and considerations for the reader... this is a good thing because it leaves some interpretation up to the reader and the reader can then decide what to do with that particular information.

If scientists don't show how to learn, then why do schools hire chemistry, biology, physics, and astronomy teachers?

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:Cougar...as has been said, microevolution is not macroevolution. A bacteria using a new energy source is not evidence for common descent.

The point here is given enough small changes major changes are possible.
Change the shape of an enzyme and a bacteria can decompose a sugar instead of a sulfer compound. Change a development protein and the retina is normal instead of inside out. These are small changes, enough of them and will this population still be the same as the original?

What is preventing small changes from accumulating?


Ignore the following,
My wife likes this smiley.
So I had to put it in...

What part of the article you posted is proof to you for macroevolution?

Homology, allopatry, sympatry, vestigal organs, transitional forms of reptile-birds, reptile-mammals, (especially skulls of therapsid, or synapsids) biogeography, developmental biology (radial versus spiral symmetry of blastocysts)... if you would like me to explain in detail, let me know. I especially an intrigued by the transitional forms mentioned in the article, most namely the Archaeopteryx (everyone's heard of it) but there are many others. Not to mention genetic similarities between skads of animals to each other and to humans.

Cougar wrote:Homology, allopatry, sympatry, vestigal organs, transitional forms of reptile-birds, reptile-mammals, (especially skulls of therapsid, or synapsids) biogeography, developmental biology (radial versus spiral symmetry of blastocysts)... if you would like me to explain in detail, let me know. I especially an intrigued by the transitional forms mentioned in the article, most namely the Archaeopteryx (everyone's heard of it) but there are many others. Not to mention genetic similarities between skads of animals to each other and to humans.

You say evolution is proof, but you never, in your own words, tell us and explain how it is proof, what is falsible and testable about it? Have you tested evolution and it comes out perfect proof for it?

Cougar wrote:Homology, allopatry, sympatry, vestigal organs, transitional forms of reptile-birds, reptile-mammals, (especially skulls of therapsid, or synapsids) biogeography, developmental biology (radial versus spiral symmetry of blastocysts)... if you would like me to explain in detail, let me know. I especially an intrigued by the transitional forms mentioned in the article, most namely the Archaeopteryx (everyone's heard of it) but there are many others. Not to mention genetic similarities between skads of animals to each other and to humans.

Not to start a purely scientific debate but the transitionality of Archaeopteryx is debated.
Especially with new evidence which leads to the the posibility of certain "dinosaurs" developing from early birds. However transitional forms do exist, and Archaeopteryx is beleived to be at least a contemporary of a possible transitional form. I myself beleive that dinosaurs were much too diverse in the Cretaceous to belong to a single clade.

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:Cougar...as has been said, microevolution is not macroevolution. A bacteria using a new energy source is not evidence for common descent.

The point here is given enough small changes major changes are possible.
Change the shape of an enzyme and a bacteria can decompose a sugar instead of a sulfer compound. Change a development protein and the retina is normal instead of inside out. These are small changes, enough of them and will this population still be the same as the original?

What is preventing small changes from accumulating?


Ignore the following,
My wife likes this smiley.
So I had to put it in...

Yes...because the population of any such organisms would die out...if the eye came in backwards, gone, if bacteria suddenly requires sugar instead of sulfur, same thing.

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote: Yes...because the population of any such organisms would die out...if the eye came in backwards, gone, if bacteria suddenly requires sugar instead of sulfur, same thing.

Our retinas are inside out.

In the case of the now fructose metabolizing bacteria they would have died out if they did not adapt.

As for the sulfer bacteria, if sugar happened to be available they would prosper not die out.

Cougar wrote:Homology, allopatry, sympatry, vestigal organs, transitional forms of reptile-birds, reptile-mammals, (especially skulls of therapsid, or synapsids) biogeography, developmental biology (radial versus spiral symmetry of blastocysts)... if you would like me to explain in detail, let me know. I especially an intrigued by the transitional forms mentioned in the article, most namely the Archaeopteryx (everyone's heard of it) but there are many others. Not to mention genetic similarities between skads of animals to each other and to humans.

Homology is 1) not evidence for evolution, 2) seems to be evidence against it actually, and 3) is circular reasoning, once again. What's wrong with this? You first must show that species A and B are closely related before you say homologies exist...or else you'd say octopus and humans were closely related.

http://www.arn.org/idfaq/What%20about%2 ... mology.htm
http://www.csfpittsburgh.org/Feb03.pdf

I really don't see what allopatry has to do for you, same with sympatry.

What vestial organs? Other than the male nipple, I don't know of any organs that don't seem to serve a purpose. (but, according to certain Jewish sources, you can milk anything with nipples). Also, how would vestial organs be evidence for evolution?

And, as usual...what transitional forms?

(This is your evidence for macroevolution, correct?)

Not to mention genetic similarities between skads of animals to each other and to humans

Ah yes, the fun stuff....how is this also evidence for evolution? It can be explained by common designer as well. So, how is similarity supportive of one view and not the other.

Cougar: Pick your favorite and explain it to me (archaeopteryx?). You might have to start a new thread.

RoyLennigan wrote:Why don't you try to understand what I am saying instead of pointing out a fallacy of language?

I am sorry for using fallacious language to point out a logical fallacy.

To belive in an absolute based on incomplete evidence is ignorant. Since we all have incomplete evidence, and always will, it is ignorant to believe that anything is exactly how we percieve it.

Yet you absolutely believe we lack evidence. Self-contradiction.

Since God is the only thing absolute, then the truth comes only from God.

So 1+1=2 is God? Or is mathematic relative?

God is absolute because he created the universe. Being outside the universe, or at least on the boundries, He does not have to obey the laws of the universe. But inside the universe, he must obey the laws he put in motion. That is why he sent his son.

Nope. God is eternally unbound by the univserses' laws. What? Will God start to die when he steps foot into this place?

RoyLennigan wrote:

Cougar wrote:Roy Lennigan,

Do you have the same negative feelings towards all scientists in history or just Darwin?

All scientists who refute the spirituality God, and who attempt to decieve by 'logical analysis' are equally sinful in my eyes. They try to teach by telling directly, not by showing how to learn.

Shouldn't one use logical analysis and the power of human reason to test what is being said to see if it is a perversion of the actual order of things?

From what I have gathered, Roy believes the human mental faculties to be irrevocably flawed