Evidence for God from Science

tsellisjr wrote:

Fürstentum Liechtenstein wrote:

tsellisjr wrote:Why do you feel the need to poison a level discussion with trite facetiousness?

1) I assure you, there is no «trite facetiousness» in my comments. I suspect you of being a fake, a hollow drum, and immature.

Let me explain: if I read Dickens for an hour, I can then speak and write like Dickens. If I read an English translation of Kant for an hour, I can then speak and write like Kant. This is an ability that I have but it doesn't make me Dickens or Kant. I suspect you have the same ability. This is why I call you a fake and a hollow drum.

Immaturity: your answer to me regarding historical documents is just plain silly! but I doubt that you can see that. Your comment saying that I would have to know Koine Greek, Hebrew and «Galiean» Aramaic in order to not have second-hand understanding of the Bible betrays - at once - your ignorance and your immaturity.

Immaturity 2: anyone with as much knowledge as you claim to have is not going to try to impress anybody. Your desire to impress is as big as a billboard:

tsellisjr wrote:Vector knowledge has many definitions.

What kind of person writes «Vector knowledge»?

Let me answer: a pedant.

+ + +

Listen, Ellis. You have come to a good place to learn about Christ and what He has done for you. I would suggest that you voluntarily refrain from posting until you you are able to do so in humility and intelligence.

FL

1) Your unprovoked derision is the epitome of facetiousness and there is no rebuttal that I could author which could stand as a more fitting example and act as a greater testament to your own asininity than your own failed intellectual subterfuge to hide the extent of your own insecurities of your own system of beliefs and your inability to provide a meritable testimony.

2) I would suggest that you refrain from acting as the public representative of any religious body and disciple of any messianic doctrine until you can author one contradiction which is relevant to the discussions before any further impromptu use of elementary mockery without the presence of provocation.

We've banned people a whole lot smarter than you for a whole lot less. You have some growing up to do doctor. Good bye.

Byblos wrote:We've banned people a whole lot smarter than you for a whole lot less. You have some growing up to do doctor. Good bye.

This was a Dr.?? I usually find that people who have to brag that they are doctors usually aren't... Or they are insecure about their stance. You just pull the air hole cap of their blow up doll and they deflate pretty quickly.

A real doctor doesn't have to do that because they already know they have the smarts...

As he stated... and was NOT asked on his very first post...

With High Regards,
Dr. T.S. Ellis Jr. (Champion of all Atheists)

Gman wrote:

Byblos wrote:We've banned people a whole lot smarter than you for a whole lot less. You have some growing up to do doctor. Good bye.

This was a Dr.?? I usually find that people who have to brag that they are doctors usually aren't... Or they are insecure about their stance. You just pull the air hole cap of their blow up doll and they deflate pretty quickly.

A real doctor doesn't have to do that because they already know they have the smarts...

As he stated... and was NOT asked on his very first post...

With High Regards,
Dr. T.S. Ellis Jr. (Champion of all Atheists)

You're right Gman, I should've italicized doctor. He sounds more like a writer for the character Sheldon on that sitcom 'The Big Bang Theory', tries to sound intelligent, very entertaining.

In my truck today, the former delinquent who is my helper told me that he had given his life to Jesus Christ. When I first met him, this man was an angry Muslim blaming Jews and Americans for all imaginable evils. Now, He reads the Bible, goes to a Pentecostal church and is a gentle hard-working man.

Don't credit me with his saving; I have nothing to do with it. I just keep the truck's radio on a Christian station «whether-you-like-it-or-not.» I answered the questions he asked and provided him with a Bible. That's it. I'm not a great evangelizer, I admit.

The same thing is possible for Ellis Jr., the guy who wrote those posts in pseudo-intelligent language above. With God all is possible.

FL

Fürstentum Liechtenstein wrote:In my truck today, the former delinquent who is my helper told me that he had given his life to Jesus Christ. When I first met him, this man was an angry Muslim blaming Jews and Americans for all imaginable evils. Now, He reads the Bible, goes to a Pentecostal church and is a gentle hard-working man.

Don't credit me with his saving; I have nothing to do with it. I just keep the truck's radio on a Christian station «whether-you-like-it-or-not.» I answered the questions he asked and provided him with a Bible. That's it. I'm not a great evangelizer, I admit.

The same thing is possible for Ellis Jr., the guy who wrote those posts in pseudo-intelligent language above. With God all is possible.

FL

Thanks for posting this FL, the conversion of the muslim is great!

I too thought tsellisjr might have been examining himself, but it was a bit murky to know for sure.

As always, I appreciate your thoughts.

Hello all. I'm new to the forums here. I've visited the website many times but never knew there was a forum until recently. I've been reading through some of the posts in this thread, and while it seems to have strayed away from its original purpose, there are still a few things I would like to comment on.

godslanguage wrote:Evolved into a lungless species? That sounds a whole lot like devolution, thats correct becuase Darwinian evolution is completely good at doing that. Coincidentally, all frogs breathe through their skin.

Devolution does not exist in a scientific sense. Devolution is a term used to describe a species evolving into a more "primitive" form. Evolution is not directional; therefore, devolution is a fallacious concept. Many people seem to have a vague idea that evolution means progress to more advanced organisms. This is not the case. Increasing complexity is also not a necessary outcome for evolution.

Cross.eyed wrote:This rings more to adaptation or microevolution which is common. I get tired of hearing evolution proper or DE as being the answer for everything that has happened.

Most scientists make no distinction between "micro" and "macro" evolution. The same biological processes involved in one are involved in the other. In other words, most scientists agree that these two words are really describing the same process.

If microevolution is possible, why would macroevolution NOT be possible? What mechanism can possibly prevent these changes over time from resulting in the creation of new species?

Cross-eyed wrote:I have no problem with evolution, if evolution is true (noone has proven it yet) then GOD made evolution.

Cross.eyed wrote: Care to give some examples of proof?

No one will ever completely "prove" evolution, just as no one will "prove" gravity or thermodynamics. Scientific theories are subject to change; this is one of the greatest things about the scientific method.

But...if one is looking for "proof" or "evidence" of evolution taking place, tsellisjr gave two examples already. There are many more out there readily available in scientific literature, many of which are easily accessible via the internet. For those that insist on being nitpicky about "microevolution" versus "macroevolution", there are also clear documented instances of speciation events.

For a few examples, look into the following:
Evening Primrose (Oenothera gigas)
African cichlid fish
London underground mosquito
Ensatina salamanders

airtightnoodle wrote:Hello all. I'm new to the forums here. I've visited the website many times but never knew there was a forum until recently. I've been reading through some of the posts in this thread, and while it seems to have strayed away from its original purpose, there are still a few things I would like to comment on.

Welcome to G&S.

Cross.eyed wrote:This rings more to adaptation or microevolution which is common. I get tired of hearing evolution proper or DE as being the answer for everything that has happened.

Most scientists make no distinction between "micro" and "macro" evolution. The same biological processes involved in one are involved in the other. In other words, most scientists agree that these two words are really describing the same process.

So, you are saying that the mechanism is the same?

If microevolution is possible, why would macroevolution NOT be possible? What mechanism can possibly prevent these changes over time from resulting in the creation of new species?

Macroevolution is possible, I never said it wasn't-see below.

Cross-eyed wrote:I have no problem with evolution, if evolution is true (noone has proven it yet) then GOD made evolution.

Cross.eyed wrote: Care to give some examples of proof?

No one will ever completely "prove" evolution, just as no one will "prove" gravity or thermodynamics. Scientific theories are subject to change; this is one of the greatest things about the scientific method.

The effects (or laws) of gravity and thermodynamics prove their existence in a more complete sense-Christians and scientists don't debate their existence.
If the fossil record supported evolution in simular fashion, I assure you we wouldn't have to debate it either.

For a few examples, look into the following:
Evening Primrose (Oenothera gigas)
African cichlid fish
London underground mosquito
Ensatina salamanders

Thanks, when I get the chance I'll look into this.

I. The value of scientific belief and opinion
Consider these great discoveries: Archimedes' principle, the Doppler effect; and the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle. Each of these terms represents a giant discrete step forward in the realm of science. Immediately prior to the publication of the scientific formulation attributed to each of these individuals, all the other scientists of the day held the belief or opinion that truth lie elsewhere; every other scientist on the face of the earth which considered these problems was wrong. By these things, the scientific value of a scientist's belief or opinion, under optimal conditions, could conceivably rise to a level of zero; it could be much less, for instance, if he were lying for gain. As a matter of fact, no reputable scientist would venture a belief or an opinion without emphasizing the fact that his belief or opinion has no bearing, relevance, or connection with or to any unproven or unprovable scientific datum. Thus it may be seen exactly why the old-school scientific method required observable, verifiable, and repeatable results; and, why this modern relativistic scientific method is a wicked excuse for real science. [Note 1: It is assumed that the contemporary scientists were not thinking what Archimedes, Doppler, or Heisenberg propounded; they certainly were not saying it. If they had been thinking one thing and saying another, they would have been politicians, not scientists.] [Note 2: Hate not the politician; he is struggling through life, as are we all. I pray that a little levity leaveneth not the whole lump.]

II. Evolution and Origin-of-Life
Evolutionists have made the claim that evolution does not address the origin of life. Of course, what this really means is that evolutionists do not wish to address the origin of life. Evolution claims to have scientific knowledge of this immensely long, but continuous, chain of related events spanning all natural history; simultaneously, evolution claims to have no knowledge of the origin of life, the first link of its immensely long chain of events. But the knowledge claimed through scientific study of the "naturalistic only" activities of the rest of the chain makes implication with regard to the first link: the claim that there are only naturalistic forces at work is forced to assume that no supernatural forces acted upon or during the first step--the origin of life. Thus evolution addresses the origin of life, whether by volition or compulsion or deception.

III. Creation/Faith and Evolution/Science
Those who believe in God, the Creator of everything, readily affirm that their belief is based on faith, which is given as: a firm belief and reliance upon that for which no proof exists. As such, believers in God make no claim regarding the nature or extent of scientific verifiability since, by definition, faith is not susceptible to proof or proving; hence, there is no obligation of believers of God-as-Creator to prove their point of view.

Evolution claims to be science; that claim requires the requisite proof. There is an old axiom: It's not science if you can't prove it! Thus evolutionists should not be cranky about requests for proof; they have chosen their own course. I recently read some squabbling over micro/macroevolution. If evolution has scientific proof that the evolutionary ancestors of modern man walked on four legs and man now walks on two legs, there should be evidence that man passed through a three-legged phase. Or perhaps, evidence that he did not. [Supposition is not evidence.] Do not take this lightly: I once owned a dog that had lost the use of one leg. He could not run as well as a four-legged dog; but he certainly could run better than a two-legged dog.

IIII. Leftovers
Please accept my apologies: You probably thought this would never end. I think the nub of this whole controversy is that evolution is also faith-based; it is based on the repudiation of God-as-Creator. Now if only the evolutionists would make such a concession, all this Creation/Evolution controversy would go away. Just think: The administrators could administrate; the teachers could teach real science; and the children could learn the TRUTH!

Thank you.

To paraphrase someone I can't remember, If you see evidence of design in the beauty of nature you have to believe in a creator that has created all life, then killed off to the point of extinction 99% of all species ever to have existed, with such beautiful products of design as smallpox, cholera and AIDS. You are welcome to such a creator, but if you continue to believe you are being, in the most literal way, unreasonable and I cannot be bothered to argue with you.

davidbowieiloveyou wrote:To paraphrase someone I can't remember, If you see evidence of design in the beauty of nature you have to believe in a creator that has created all life, then killed off to the point of extinction 99% of all species ever to have existed, with such beautiful products of design as smallpox, cholera and AIDS. You are welcome to such a creator, but if you continue to believe you are being, in the most literal way, unreasonable and I cannot be bothered to argue with you.

So are you gone, lol? That's good that you don't want to argue with us, since that wouldn't be kind, and saying we're unreasonable - without knowing Christian doctrine and theology - is also unkind. So much for humanism, lol. You obviously don't know enough of what we believe to judge. I'd suggest reading other sources and references besides the ones that seem to fit your worldview, so that you can try and understand others. We are perfectly aware of death and evil, and we have understandings and beliefs about them that are reasonable. You should check them out!

I see divine creation and evolution as two sides of the same coin. That's what Michael Dowd said and I couldn't agree more.

@ cfldsl:

If evolution has scientific proof that the evolutionary ancestors of modern man walked on four legs and man now walks on two legs, there should be evidence that man passed through a three-legged phase. Or perhaps, evidence that he did not. [Supposition is not evidence.] Do not take this lightly: I once owned a dog that had lost the use of one leg. He could not run as well as a four-legged dog; but he certainly could run better than a two-legged dog.

I don't think necessarily - there are several quadrupedal animals that rear up on both hind legs, and some of which (such as bears and non-human primates) can even walk upright a few steps. I could see some of the later hominids starting to do so more and more leading to the first bipedal homidids.

To be honest, Michael Dowd sort of creeps me out...I don't know why. I haven't seen him in person, nor have I read or listened to anything of his in entirety, so I can't say that feeling is justified at all at this stage.

BUT...I do love the Jesus fish kissing the Darwin fish logo. I even have a shirt with that logo on it.

airtightnoodle wrote:I do love the Jesus fish kissing the Darwin fish logo. I even have a shirt with that logo on it.

Hi airtightnoodle,

I kindda like that logo too, specially the Darwin Fish with legs... or boots? Ya, every fish here in Canada have boots, its winter time!

Cheers (and I kindda like your nick, great!)

Victor

godslanguage wrote: Until then, lets play the Darwinian for a day. Go to your nearest local junkyard, take pictures of as many cars as possible, as many as your lithium ion batteries can withstand or as many as your flash memory can hold, write down their model, type etc.., then go to your nearest new automobile dealership and do the same. Take as many pictures as you need you feel will make your case, go back home and organize them into a tree like structure if you like by type, then from type to extend model until you hit the bottom of the barrel (the most current automobile or if your doing it in reverse the top of the barrel). Once you have done that, conclude evolved by chance and declare victory, for that is the Darwinian way.

Have fun!

This is an interesting idea.
Of course evolution doesn't state that chance alone drives evolution, but imagine the following.

Car designs have changed over time.
Lets say we turn back the hands of time to the days of the Model T.
If we were to replay it up to the present time, do you feel that the models and brands we have today will be the exact same?
Or would you reason that certain enhancements, features and embellishments will arise at different times from the timeline we live in.

For example if we were to play it over again would a car named the Corvette still come out in 1953?

Anonymiss wrote:@ cfldsl:

If evolution has scientific proof that the evolutionary ancestors of modern man walked on four legs and man now walks on two legs, there should be evidence that man passed through a three-legged phase. Or perhaps, evidence that he did not. [Supposition is not evidence.] Do not take this lightly: I once owned a dog that had lost the use of one leg. He could not run as well as a four-legged dog; but he certainly could run better than a two-legged dog.

I don't think necessarily - there are several quadrupedal animals that rear up on both hind legs, and some of which (such as bears and non-human primates) can even walk upright a few steps. I could see some of the later hominids starting to do so more and more leading to the first bipedal homidids.

Birds are bipedal, dinosaurs were bipedal, kangaroos are tripedal (hindlimbs and tail) apes can walk upright but aren't fully bipedal (they can also walk on all fours).

In all cases however, the species still have four limbs. The fact that some do not use their forelimbs for locomotion is simply that they have developed other uses for their "arms".