Evidence for God from Science

thereal wrote: That should get you started for sources to find exactly what you're looking for, but I doubt you'll read it anyway because it's a science book, not a religious book on science. It discusses case examples of evolution studies and the intrinsic patterns and processes observed. If you're serious about learning about evolution as opposed to simply finding a way to refute it without having a firm grasp of the subject you're refuting, I'd recommend this or any introductory evolution text.

I have read texts on evolution, several, and it is speculation and conjecture. There is no actual evidence to show that life can evolve beyond a bit of designed adaptability.

what is truth

The actual state of a matter
conformity with reality
accuracy of a position

Jbuza wrote:I have read texts on evolution, several, and it is speculation and conjecture. There is no actual evidence to show that life can evolve beyond a bit of designed adaptability.

what is truth

The actual state of a matter
conformity with reality
accuracy of a position

god is only an assumption as well, but you take that for granted. why one and not the other? there seems to be some kind of undue bias towards evolution at work here instead of innocent truth. you cannot have belief without assumption.

Zenith wrote:

Jbuza wrote:I have read texts on evolution, several, and it is speculation and conjecture. There is no actual evidence to show that life can evolve beyond a bit of designed adaptability.

what is truth

The actual state of a matter
conformity with reality
accuracy of a position

god is only an assumption as well, but you take that for granted. why one and not the other? there seems to be some kind of undue bias towards evolution at work here instead of innocent truth. you cannot have belief without assumption.

That's correct. It is a matter of what I am conviced is true. I have seen no convincing evidence for evolution.

Jbuza wrote:I have read texts on evolution, several, and it is speculation and conjecture. There is no actual evidence to show that life can evolve beyond a bit of designed adaptability.

Tell me then what is your explanation for the distribution of forms found in the fossil record?
Why if there was a global flood are terrestrial life forms segregated from marine ones.
And why are mammals segregated from dinosaurs.
And why are primative extinct fish forms segregated from modern fish fossils?
What is the cause of this, and what are we to make of this?

Jbuza wrote:

what is truth

The actual state of a matter
conformity with reality
accuracy of a position

The above observations are the actual state of the matter, please stop ignoring them, and address them.

Behe's 'irreducibly complex' argument kind of amuses me. I remember growing up my dad used to tell me the story of his biology teacher 'professing' that the heart evolved from an artery. And dad told me even as a teen he could see through the lies.He asked the prophet...er professor what good an artery without a heart was?

This goes back to the late 50's early 60's. I'm sure there are many more examples of such blind foolishness!

IRQ Conflict wrote:Behe's 'irreducibly complex' argument kind of amuses me. I remember growing up my dad used to tell me the story of his biology teacher 'professing' that the heart evolved from an artery. And dad told me even as a teen he could see through the lies.He asked the prophet...er professor what good an artery without a heart was?

This goes back to the late 50's early 60's. I'm sure there are many more examples of such blind foolishness!

Perhaps it is foolish to assume that vessels require a heart.

In primative vascular systems there is no need for a heart. The blood acts as a vessel to transport nourishment only, not oxygen as it does in more advanced forms of life.

In cnideria(Jellyfish) this transport system delievers food to the rest of the organism without a heart to produce the circulation.

In some classes of anneilid there is no heart which circulates the blood. It is the vessels themselves which contract to bring blood back to the gut and away from the gut.

In earthworms there are a series of aortic arches which help to propell the blood through the body. No central heart.


Perhaps a thousand years from now a child may wonder how we could have roads without robotic cars to drive us around in. But once upon a time we traveled in a horse and buggy.

Heh, perhaps I wasn't specific enough, the professor want talking about worms, he was talking about people.

I have looked but never found any evidence of evolution of the heart in a transitional phase allowing for respiratory exchange, which is a far cry from the simple worm.

The warm-blooded animals such as birds and mammals have a high metabolic rate and an efficient double-circuit circulation is a necessity for these species. The hearts of birds and mammals are four-chambered organs, in which blood flowing through pulmonary circulation is completely separated from that of systemic circulation, and vise versa. This allows for no mixing of oxygenated and deoxygenated blood and, as a result, is much more efficient.

Perhaps a thousand years from now a child may wonder how we could have roads without robotic cars to drive us around in. But once upon a time we traveled in a horse and buggy.

Perhaps they will wonder, so we in our infinite wisdom will show them PROOF (read transitional form) of those events, not just heresy...er hearsay

IRQ Conflict wrote:Heh, perhaps I wasn't specific enough, the professor want talking about worms, he was talking about people.

I have looked but never found any evidence of evolution of the heart in a transitional phase allowing for respiratory exchange, which is a far cry from the simple worm.

The transition is not theorized to have occurred in people. The first vertebrates are beleived to have taken a system of multiple aortic arches and from that a heart developed.

It's like looking at all the automobiles being built today and looking for a transitional form which lacks a catalytic converter. You won't find it.
Cars without catalytic converters are very old models and do not resemble todays cars.

IRQ Conflict wrote:

The warm-blooded animals such as birds and mammals have a high metabolic rate and an efficient double-circuit circulation is a necessity for these species. The hearts of birds and mammals are four-chambered organs, in which blood flowing through pulmonary circulation is completely separated from that of systemic circulation, and vise versa. This allows for no mixing of oxygenated and deoxygenated blood and, as a result, is much more efficient.

Yes but you can see there is a difference in the design of hearts throughout the vertebrate spectrum.
Here's a fish heart


Is it possible to have a modern postal system without the developed road system?
If the development of the heart through evolutionary processes is true then the dependancy on a more efficient form of respiration could only have occured after the improvement of the heart.

IRQ Conflict wrote:

Perhaps a thousand years from now a child may wonder how we could have roads without robotic cars to drive us around in. But once upon a time we traveled in a horse and buggy.

Perhaps they will wonder, so we in our infinite wisdom will show them PROOF (read transitional form) of those events, not just heresy...er hearsay

The components of life derive from proteins whose building instructions are contained in the complex molecule known as DNA. All life shares this feature.

There is compelling peices of evidence out there if you are willing to explore and understand them. Once you have done this then it is up to you to determine what the best plausible explanation is.

Until then I am sure you are dismissing any evidence before having examined the data. Otherwise you would be speaking about data and inconsistencies rather than stating that it is heresy.

IRQ Conflict wrote:Heh, perhaps I wasn't specific enough, the professor want talking about worms, he was talking about people.

Heh, heh, perhaps this is specific enough for you ? Perhaps sometimes father doesn't know best ? Here is a nice big human circulatory system without a heart.

//www.acm.uiuc.edu/sigbio/project/updated-lymphatic/lymph2.html wrote:
Flowing slowly along the primary lymphatics, the lymph empties into progressively larger lymphatic vessels which ultimately converge as the Thoracic Duct and drain their contents into the right and left subclavian veins in the thorax. In summary the lymphatic system serves as a slow flowing, low pressure drainage system that collects a small portion of the interstitial fluid from throughout the body and returns it to the bloodstream. The Thoracic Duct arises anterior to the second lumbar vertebra as enlarged sac, beginning as the cisterna chyli. This sac like lymphatic mass collects lymph from lower limbs of the body as well as the digestive system.

Unlike the circulatory systems, the lymphatic system lacks any central "heart" like organ to pump lymph throughotu the lymph vessels. Instead, the lymphatic system depends on muscular movement, breathing, and simple gravity to move lymph fluid throughout the body. However, the Thoracic Duct does contain smooth muscle (the same muscle type that exists in the lower digestive system and the arterial system) in order aid lymph flow. Thus, frequent movement is critical for humans to properly move lymph and prevent lymph fluid build-up in certain areas of the body.

Couple this with Bgood's excellent post and you will see how the human blood/heart circulatory system could have developed and is not impossible. But if you want absolute proof of every transitional step, then I agree, it just isn't there as not every lifeform which ever existed is preserved.

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:Until then I am sure you are dismissing any evidence before having examined the data. Otherwise you would be speaking about data and inconsistencies rather than stating that it is heresy.

I won't pull any punches bgood, I am a devout Christian, In reality I would deny and reject any proof shown to me in person as being 'Truth'.

Not to say I wouldn't acknowledge the evidence per se. Just that over the past century there have been too many lies and cover ups to believe 'evidence' as presented by the 'scientific' communism...er community

I think if someone showed me a living 'link' to man I would have to agree that it was indeed a very convincing piece of evidence. I know there are small hints at things that could be construed as evidence. But the fact that no real proof is there lessens my ability to believe in evolution.

Getting back to the faith in God thing, a lot of my reluctance stems not out of evolutionary ignorance (although not denied), but also that the Bible states quite clearly of an illusion so powerful that if it were possible even the very elect would believe. So I tend to be overly cautious with what I take as fact or not

Also, apart from the God thing, I find it so very unlikely that anything can spontaneously exist and evolve without outside intervention that it is, to me at least, laughable. I don't mean to put you or Sandy down, in fact I admire your dedication to what you believe to be true, and I appreciate your responses.

I would love to learn what the crux, cornerstone of your and Sandy's faith in evolution is? did you alway's believe the theory?

What if anything would convince you to denounce evolution as a viable solution to our origin or current place in today's universe?

IRQ Conflict wrote:I won't pull any punches bgood, I am a devout Christian, In reality I would deny and reject any proof shown to me in person as being 'Truth'.

You are always entitled to your beleifs, I am not trying to convince you of the truth. Only that evolution is not based on heresay, beleifs and logical formulations. Evolution is based on empirical evidence and experimentally backed up hypotheses. Evidence you can touch and see for yourself. Experiments you can repeat for yourself. You can choose to reject it, however I believe you are misrepresenting what the theory is when characterizing it as nonsense or empty.

IRQ Conflict wrote:Not to say I wouldn't acknowledge the evidence per se. Just that over the past century there have been too many lies and cover ups to believe 'evidence' as presented by the 'scientific' communism...er community

I think if someone showed me a living 'link' to man I would have to agree that it was indeed a very convincing piece of evidence. I know there are small hints at things that could be construed as evidence. But the fact that no real proof is there lessens my ability to believe in evolution.

Well in reality the evidence is much more technical than a living link.

IRQ Conflict wrote:Getting back to the faith in God thing, a lot of my reluctance stems not out of evolutionary ignorance (although not denied), but also that the Bible states quite clearly of an illusion so powerful that if it were possible even the very elect would believe. So I tend to be overly cautious with what I take as fact or not

Just wondering where this particular peice of scripture is located.

IRQ Conflict wrote:Also, apart from the God thing, I find it so very unlikely that anything can spontaneously exist and evolve without outside intervention that it is, to me at least, laughable.

No one has stated that anything formed spontaneously, far from it.

IRQ Conflict wrote:I don't mean to put you or Sandy down, in fact I admire your dedication to what you believe to be true, and I appreciate your responses.

Thank you as do I yours.

IRQ Conflict wrote:I would love to learn what the crux, cornerstone of your and Sandy's faith in evolution is? did you alway's believe the theory?

I would rather focus on the facts and let you reach your own conclusions.

IRQ Conflict wrote:What if anything would convince you to denounce evolution as a viable solution to our origin or current place in today's universe?

Experimental outcomes which show that the various mechanisms of change cannot occur.

To start off lets start with the observation that life begets life.
Take this together with fossils which do not contain modern forms.

Is there an explanation for this phenomenon? Is there a way to test this idea?

Bgood wrote
Tell me then what is your explanation for the distribution of forms found in the fossil record?
Why if there was a global flood are terrestrial life forms segregated from marine ones.
And why are mammals segregated from dinosaurs.
And why are primative extinct fish forms segregated from modern fish fossils?
What is the cause of this, and what are we to make of this?



So what is your point animals are found distributed throughout the earth in fossilized form?

Demonstrate to me that land forms and marine forms are not found together. You are starting to sound like some of those texts with empty claims of what is theorized with no actual demonstration that what you say is true.

Again you cannot show this to be true, and certainly up to this point all you have done is claim it. But there is a mechanism that does suggest that dinos and mammals will not be found together in any widespread fashion. You just do not find prey animals living in the same location as predators.

Again please demonstrate that this is true, and is not just a piece of the unsubstantiated framework of evolution.

Fossilization is caused by the global flood. Distribution of extinct “subspecies”, extinct species, and larger examples of living reptiles is interesting information demonstrating all the different animals that have lived on earth.

Evolution is what does the segregating and defining ages of formations based upon content. The evidence simply doesn't take me to evolution. There are observations, evidence, experiences, that lead me through logic and reason to other conclusions, and since I don't find the fossil record troublesome for creation, I find it as further evidence that God is who he says he is, and when this methodological investigation is coupled with surveys of history, philosophical understanding, and the absolute order of mathmatics then I conclude that I have found truth.

So you can take your empty claims with you on your journey to false conclusions. IF you look at the distribution of life today you will find they also are often congregated into specific areas. IF a massive layer of sediment trapped all the crocodiles where they are you would be unlikely to find a mixture of all the other animals there as well. Your grand claims of extrapolating your theory to the entirety of the bones in sediments on this planet is laughable.

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:Just wondering where this particular peice of scripture is located.

2Th 2:10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
2Th 2:11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:

Mat 24:24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall show great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.

Mar 13:22 For false Christs and false prophets shall rise, and shall show signs and wonders, to seduce, if it were possible, even the elect.

1Pe 2:6 Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Zion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:Experimental outcomes which show that the various mechanisms of change cannot occur.

To start off lets start with the observation that life begets life.
Take this together with fossils which do not contain modern forms.

Is there an explanation for this phenomenon? Is there a way to test this idea?

You mean fossilized human remains that reflect our current state of being? Iv'e never looked into it. Interesting...

Jbuza wrote:Bgood wrote
Tell me then what is your explanation for the distribution of forms found in the fossil record?
Why if there was a global flood are terrestrial life forms segregated from marine ones.
And why are mammals segregated from dinosaurs.
And why are primative extinct fish forms segregated from modern fish fossils?
What is the cause of this, and what are we to make of this?

So what is your point animals are found distributed throughout the earth in fossilized form?

Demonstrate to me that land forms and marine forms are not found together. You are starting to sound like some of those texts with empty claims of what is theorized with no actual demonstration that what you say is true.

Are you sure of this or are you making a claim hoping that it's true?

Jbuza wrote:Again you cannot show this to be true, and certainly up to this point all you have done is claim it. But there is a mechanism that does suggest that dinos and mammals will not be found together in any widespread fashion. You just do not find prey animals living in the same location as predators.

Really than what do predators prey on? Also many dinosaurs are not predatory animals. This doesn't add up.

Jbuza wrote:Again please demonstrate that this is true, and is not just a piece of the unsubstantiated framework of evolution.

What is the mechanisms which would segregate these lifeforms? Are you saying that there is no segregation?

Jbuza wrote:Fossilization is caused by the global flood. Distribution of extinct “subspecies”, extinct species, and larger examples of living reptiles is interesting information demonstrating all the different animals that have lived on earth.

The point is that these forms are not found together in the same layers.

Jbuza wrote:Evolution is what does the segregating and defining ages of formations based upon content.

So you are admiting that there is a contextual basis to this segregation. You are saying that there are layers of just dinosaurs and layers of just mammals.

Jbuza wrote:The evidence simply doesn't take me to evolution.

I am not asking you to dispute this. I am asking you to explain the evidence.

Jbuza wrote:There are observations, evidence, experiences, that lead me through logic and reason to other conclusions, and since I don't find the fossil record troublesome for creation, I find it as further evidence that God is who he says he is, and when this methodological investigation is coupled with surveys of history, philosophical understanding, and the absolute order of mathmatics then I conclude that I have found truth.

Again you're only making statements. What is the mechanism, and on what evidence do you base this mechanism on?

Jbuza wrote:So you can take your empty claims with you on your journey to false conclusions. IF you look at the distribution of life today you will find they also are often congregated into specific areas. IF a massive layer of sediment trapped all the crocodiles where they are you would be unlikely to find a mixture of all the other animals there as well.

I would expect to find hippos, fish, various species of birds and a few terrestrial animals who happened to be taking a drink in this formation. Should't all the life in a particular area be found together if a massive sedimentation ocurred? Why only crocodiles, that seems counter to common sense.

Jbuza wrote:Your grand claims of extrapolating your theory to the entirety of the bones in sediments on this planet is laughable.

Again you have not described a single mechanisms to show how the fossil distribution could have occurred.

What caused all the dinosaurs to be burried in one layer of sediment and then not be found at all in another layer?

Take a visit to Iowa to the Coralville Lake Emergency Spillway. You tell me why there are no modern fish in this formation?