Evidence for God from Science

CharlieB wrote:

CharlieB wrote: It's too bad that school children don't get that right to believe in what they want. They have to endure the evolution religion or receive a lower grade.

qqMOARpewpew wrote: Not true, you can send your children to Christian school, or teach them at home, or move to another country without public schooling and work your child on the land. Or you can brain wash your kids into thinking evolution is a religion and then send them to public school, while continuing to force creationism into their head

Can you believe how selfish some evolutionist are? It is just fine to force people to pay for their religion but don't you dare teach something even remotely Christian in government schools. If someone can't see that forcing a citizen to pay for a religion they don't believe it in wrong I suggest they seek help. That is just plan wrong and everyone SHOULD know it. Have they ever heard of the 1st amendment? Remember all the fuss when the shoe was on the other foot?

As far as the "move to another country" nonsense, how about if the traitors that won't follow the Constitution move to a socialist country that better fits their ideology?

Err. you don't have to pay swat to teach your kid whatever religious beliefs you want. Spend time with them and teach them the true story that evolution is a religion etc.

The government can not favor your religion that evolution is a religion over other religions. They teach science in science class. If you want religion classes in schools talk to whoever is in charge of that, to be fair they will have to cover the main views of the country or world or area, or something like that.

As far as removing or making science classes optional, we have to compete with china and the rest of the world, at least until the world government rises, or doesn't. >_> ... <_<

If you make schools teach from a christian perspective (there were at some point in the twothousands around 250 different sects of Christian sects in the US, not including all the non-denomination churches, many of them having ratically different.) which christian perspective? Or just your personal one?

CharlieB wrote:If someone can't see that forcing a citizen to pay for a religion they don't believe it in wrong I suggest they seek help. That is just plan wrong and everyone SHOULD know it. Have they ever heard of the 1st amendment?

qqMOARpewpew wrote:Err. you don't have to pay swat to teach your kid whatever religious beliefs you want.

Wow, talk about missing the point. The point is the government charges me about $2000.00 per year to pay for government "schools". Since I am forced to pay for it I have a right to complain about what is taught. They must not teach religion and especially not lie about it and call it science as that is forbidden by the 1st amendment.

CharlieB wrote:Remember all the fuss when the shoe was on the other foot?

qqMOARpewpew wrote:The government can not favor your religion that evolution is a religion over other religions.

CharlieB wrote:It almost always comes to this when trying to get evolutionists to acknowledge that evolution is a religious belief: They insist circle is a square.

qqMOARpewpew wrote:If you make schools teach from a christian perspective (there were at some point in the twothousands around 250 different sects of Christian sects in the US, not including all the non-denomination churches, many of them having ratically different.) which christian perspective? Or just your personal one?

Science class is for science not religious beliefs like evolution. I don't want government teaching religion at all.

CharlieB wrote:

CharlieB wrote:If someone can't see that forcing a citizen to pay for a religion they don't believe it in wrong I suggest they seek help. That is just plan wrong and everyone SHOULD know it. Have they ever heard of the 1st amendment?

qqMOARpewpew wrote:Err. you don't have to pay swat to teach your kid whatever religious beliefs you want.

Wow, talk about missing the point. The point is the government charges me about $2000.00 per year to pay for government "schools". Since I am forced to pay for it I have a right to complain about what is taught. They must not teach religion and especially not lie about it and call it science as that is forbidden by the 1st amendment.

CharlieB wrote:Remember all the fuss when the shoe was on the other foot?

qqMOARpewpew wrote:The government can not favor your religion that evolution is a religion over other religions.

CharlieB wrote:It almost always comes to this when trying to get evolutionists to acknowledge that evolution is a religious belief: They insist circle is a square.

qqMOARpewpew wrote:If you make schools teach from a christian perspective (there were at some point in the twothousands around 250 different sects of Christian sects in the US, not including all the non-denomination churches, many of them having ratically different.) which christian perspective? Or just your personal one?

Science class is for science not religious beliefs like evolution. I don't want government teaching religion at all.

Well then join your local school board or become a politician. I like it as is, and I rather them teach what you consider a religion because the rest of the world uses evolution as science, and we have to compete with the rest of the worlds schools. We're already losing in science and math, partly because of the evolution issue. As for evidence for evolution and the general overall topic of creation vs natural origins of life/evolution: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

qqMOARpewpew wrote:Well then join your local school board or become a politician. I like it as is, and I rather them teach what you consider a religion because the rest of the world uses evolution as science, and we have to compete with the rest of the worlds schools. We're already losing in science and math, partly because of the evolution issue. As for evidence for evolution and the general overall topic of creation vs natural origins of life/evolution: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Darwinian evolution is certainly not science... It's a religious philosophy. We're already losing in science and math because evolution has degraded the minds of our youth into stupidity..

Would you like to debate it?

CharlieB wrote:I want to come up with a quick no-brainer to tell people on why evolution is religious and not science. I need something quick and obvious. Too much technical information will not get the point across and risk confusing them. Let me know what you think and if something needs to be improved with what I have for now:

4 truths to prove evolution is religious and not scientific:

No one has ever made matter appear from nothing.

No one has ever seen an animal give birth to anything other that it's own kind

No one has ever seen a star form but there have been many explosions witnessed

No one has ever produced life from non living things.

Science has not been able to do any of these. However to believe in evolution requires that you have faith that all these happened.

1. That's cosmology, not evolution.
2. Evolution doesn't recognise the biblical concept of "kinds", and in any case, wouldn't predict one species giving birth to another species.
3. Irrelevent to evolution, which deals with biology.
4. True, but 50 years ago no-one had ever walked on the moon. And in any case, evolution doesn't have anything to do with the origin of life, so irrelevent once again.

Sceptic wrote: And in any case, evolution doesn't have anything to do with the origin of life, so irrelevent once again.

Care to explain how you can account for a series without accounting for the first in a series?

August wrote:

Sceptic wrote: And in any case, evolution doesn't have anything to do with the origin of life, so irrelevent once again.

Care to explain how you can account for a series without accounting for the first in a series?

By observation of the behaviour of the members of the series. The first in the series has not (yet) been accounted for, but that is a separate area of research called abiogenesis. Interestingly, Darwinian principles may well apply to abiogenesis mechanisms too.

Alternatively, you could just halt all scientific research, and say "God went abracadabra!"

Sceptic wrote:

August wrote:

Sceptic wrote: And in any case, evolution doesn't have anything to do with the origin of life, so irrelevent once again.

Care to explain how you can account for a series without accounting for the first in a series?

The first in the series has not (yet) been accounted for, but that is a separate area of research called abiogenesis. Interestingly, Darwinian principles may well apply to abiogenesis mechanisms too.

Alternatively, you could just halt all scientific research, and say "God went abracadabra!"

So if the first in the series has not been accounted for, on what basis can it be extrapolated backwards or forward?

Or you can just halt all scientific progress, call it evolution and say everything happened by chance.

August wrote:So if the first in the series has not been accounted for, on what basis can it be extrapolated backwards or forward?

Or you can just halt all scientific progress, call it evolution and say everything happened by chance.

Via multiple lines of scientific evidence, and logical deduction. That's how scientific theories work.

Evolution doesn't say "everything happened by chance", this is a common misconception.

Sceptic wrote:

August wrote:So if the first in the series has not been accounted for, on what basis can it be extrapolated backwards or forward?

Or you can just halt all scientific progress, call it evolution and say everything happened by chance.

Via multiple lines of scientific evidence, and logical deduction. That's how scientific theories work.

Evolution doesn't say "everything happened by chance", this is a common misconception.[/quote

No answer then, just some generic brabble about scientific evidence and logic.

If everything, according to evolutionists, did not happen by chance, what caused it then?

August wrote:If everything, according to evolutionists, did not happen by chance, what caused it then?

Evolution is descent with modification. Modification occcurs via genetic drift and gene mutation. The resultant modified organisms are then subject to natural selection, alongside unmodified organisms. This is not "everything happening by chance". A mountain of evidence supports the theory of evolution, and no evidence opposes it.

Sceptic wrote:

August wrote:If everything, according to evolutionists, did not happen by chance, what caused it then?

Evolution is descent with modification. Modification occcurs via genetic drift and gene mutation. The resultant modified organisms are then subject to natural selection, alongside unmodified organisms. This is not "everything happening by chance". A mountain of evidence supports the theory of evolution, and no evidence opposes it.

A nice recitation of the Darwinian fairy tale. Unfortunately you have not shown what causes gene drift, for example. There are loads of evidence showing the improbability of the mechanisms you describe being able to produce what evo's claim it does.

But let's make it easy.

Why don't you pick any ancestor-descendant example, and show us the biochemical pathways by which the descendants came from the ancestor.

August wrote:A nice recitation of the Darwinian fairy tale. Unfortunately you have not shown what causes gene drift, for example. There are loads of evidence showing the improbability of the mechanisms you describe being able to produce what evo's claim it does.

But let's make it easy.

Why don't you pick any ancestor-descendant example, and show us the biochemical pathways by which the descendants came from the ancestor.

OK. The methicillin resistance gene (mecA) encodes a methicillin-resistant penicillin-binding protein in MRSA, not present in SA. That WAS easy.

There is no evidence at all which opposes the ToE. As soon as any appears, the ToE will be invalidated, and we will have to think again. Creationism, by contrast, isn't falsifiable, and is purely faith-based.

Sceptic wrote:

August wrote:A nice recitation of the Darwinian fairy tale. Unfortunately you have not shown what causes gene drift, for example. There are loads of evidence showing the improbability of the mechanisms you describe being able to produce what evo's claim it does.

But let's make it easy.

Why don't you pick any ancestor-descendant example, and show us the biochemical pathways by which the descendants came from the ancestor.

OK. The methicillin resistance gene (mecA) encodes a methicillin-resistant penicillin-binding protein in MRSA, not present in SA. That WAS easy.

There is no evidence at all which opposes the ToE. As soon as any appears, the ToE will be invalidated, and we will have to think again. Creationism, by contrast, isn't falsifiable, and is purely faith-based.

And that just happened by chance, I guess. Giving you the benefit of the doubt, please point me to a study on that.

August wrote:And that just happened by chance, I guess. Giving you the benefit of the doubt, please point me to a study on that.

There you go with the "chance" thing again!

Google might help.