Evidence for God from Science

I understand. You won't accept the truth of my comments. Here's some more. Chimps are well known aggressors in the wild, the discussion goes way beyond the materially notable biological differences between chimps and humans, evolution is a theory not a fact that is strangely practiced like a substitute religion by atheists, and what we actually know about bipedalism doesn't prove that man and chimps descended from a common anscestor.

In any event, you should not be quick to be offended by anything I have to say as my life and well being hang by a very thin thread that could snap at any time. If it does, I won't be posting here anymore. Honestly, you can rest in the knowledge that your life is better than mine and carry on. You can look at me like a piece of doo doo to wipe off the heel of your shoe if it makes you happy and it won't bother me in the least. What I'm trying to say is just enjoy the discussion. Now that you know how it is there is really no need to take anything I say personally.

It's not that I don't accept the truth of your comments, it's the fact that I don't agree with your comments. Humans are well known aggressors in the wild and urban areas, as well a chimps. I still say evolution is a fact, as I stated to Gman. Also, claiming atheism/evolution is a religion is like saying not collecting stamps is a hobby.'

I wasn't offended by your comments, as I said I was disappointed, as I am enjoying this discussion myself (otherwise I wouldn't be here.) It would take a very nasty person for me to look at them like a piece of excrement on the heel of my shoe. Do I consider you a nasty person? No, I don't, and trust me I know plenty of them. Sorry to hear of your illness.

Gman wrote: Darwinian evolution is a different kind of science, it's a historical science that claims what happened in the past. As an example comparing Darwinian evolution to gravity.. There is a categorical difference between evolutionary science and gravity.. Gravity can make simple predictions like the gravitational force between the earth and the moon. It's something that can be measured.. You can't take Darwinism and formulate it to an equation like F=MA the force of gravity. Dawinism is NOT a law, you can't measure it.. It's all just speculation… And if you believed that life arose by chance processes, you have to believe that millions of years ago life arouse from non-life, from matter, and this violates the law of biogeneis. No scientist has ever showed this law could ever be violated.

Gravity is a physical theory though, not a biological one; biological theories differ in that they stem from the laws of physics but are obfuscated by the mechanics of living organisms. For example the germ theory of disease or the theory that HIV is the cause of AIDS are biological theories that are more "complex" and more difficult to "observe" than, say, the theory of gravity...but this doesn't denigrate the theories. The key thing with all these biological theories is that you can make predictions based upon them, in exactly the same manner as you can make predictions based upon the theory of gravity.
Science is judged by the outlandishness or "common-senseness" of it's theories - it is judged by the congruence of those theories with how the universe really is.

ageofknowledge wrote: In any event, you should not be quick to be offended by anything I have to say as my life and well being hang by a very thin thread that could snap at any time. If it does, I won't be posting here anymore. Honestly, you can rest in the knowledge that your life is better than mine and carry on. You can look at me like a piece of doo doo to wipe off the heel of your shoe if it makes you happy and it won't bother me in the least. What I'm trying to say is just enjoy the discussion. Now that you know how it is there is really no need to take anything I say personally.

+1

There is a big difference between gravity and evolution. Gravity is a problem in that it doesn't fit with the rest of physics atm, the challenge is to make it fit. Evolution does fit nicely in biology, whether right or wrong, provable of not.

You can measure gravity all you want, it still doesn't fit. You can measure evolution all you want, it still fits. It might not be the correct explanation but it's not the thorn in the foot that gravity is for physics.

Is there such thing as macro and micro gravity?

limerick wrote:Also, claiming atheism/evolution is a religion is like saying not collecting stamps is a hobby.

Not at all. It's like saying collecting a different set of stamps is a hobby. Atheism is a view of the world its adherents believe that guides their decisions resulting in real consequences. It's exactly like a religion in this sense.

And don't worry about me. Worry about yourself. My life sucks, nobody's going to lift a finger to help me, and my fingers are deformed, but at least when I die I'm going to a better place than this hellhole.

limerick wrote:At no stage did I call National Geographic a liar. The following paragraph from the same NG story should clarify the matter:

"Announced at joint press conferences in Washington, D.C., and Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, the analysis of the Ardipithecus ramidus bones will be published in a collection of papers tomorrow in a special edition of the journal Science, along with an avalanche of supporting materials published online. "

I'm afraid NG were a bit premature in their observation that the species is an ancestor, as it says in the paragraph that the official report would be published the following day. Saying it was an ancestor was a mistake, not necessarilly a lie.

Really? Well apparently ABC news is claiming the exact same thing.. Did they jump the boat too?

'Ardi:' 4.4 Million-Year-Old Fossil is Oldest Human Ancestor.

"Scientists today told the world what they know about Ardipithecus ramidus -- "Ardi" for short -- the oldest pre-human species yet found. Ardi lived 4.4 million years ago in what is now Ethiopia. "

"Six months ago, we would have said our common ancestor looked something like a chimp," said Tim White of the University of California at Berkeley, a senior researcher on the project. "Now all that has changed.

"What we found in Ethiopia at 4.4 million years ago is the closest we've ever come to that ancestor (our ancestor) along our own line," White said. "

Is Tim White retracting now too?

limerick wrote:Look I've explained my stance on this issue, I do take it to be fact, an the reason that evolution cannot be measured is because no one can predict enviromental changes that will affect the process of natural selection. We don't know how life first began, but evolution never has tried to explain this. That's all I am saying on that matter.

It's your fact... Also you are wrong again. Evolutionists are trying to explain how life began.

This Biology book below called "Biology: Concepts and Connections" (copyright 2008) explains very clearly the origin and evolution of microbial life through prokaryotes and protists. If want you to, purchase this book then read the various sections on "The Origin of Species" and the "The Origin and Evolution of Microbial Life.

touchingcloth wrote:Gravity is a physical theory though, not a biological one; biological theories differ in that they stem from the laws of physics but are obfuscated by the mechanics of living organisms. For example the germ theory of disease or the theory that HIV is the cause of AIDS are biological theories that are more "complex" and more difficult to "observe" than, say, the theory of gravity...but this doesn't denigrate the theories. The key thing with all these biological theories is that you can make predictions based upon them, in exactly the same manner as you can make predictions based upon the theory of gravity.
Science is judged by the outlandishness or "common-senseness" of it's theories - it is judged by the congruence of those theories with how the universe really is.

Be careful.. Because evolutionary scientists try to compare evolution with gravity all the time. Most notably evolutionist Dr. Eugenie Scott. That is why I brought that analogy in..

Evolution compared with gravity

If you want to challenge them, then be my guest.. If you want to say it is ludicrous, then I agree with you..

Try chemical evolution...

Gman wrote:

touchingcloth wrote:Gravity is a physical theory though, not a biological one; biological theories differ in that they stem from the laws of physics but are obfuscated by the mechanics of living organisms. For example the germ theory of disease or the theory that HIV is the cause of AIDS are biological theories that are more "complex" and more difficult to "observe" than, say, the theory of gravity...but this doesn't denigrate the theories. The key thing with all these biological theories is that you can make predictions based upon them, in exactly the same manner as you can make predictions based upon the theory of gravity.
Science is judged by the outlandishness or "common-senseness" of it's theories - it is judged by the congruence of those theories with how the universe really is.

Be careful.. Because evolutionary scientists try to compare evolution with gravity all the time. Most notably evolutionist Dr. Eugenie Scott. That is why I brought that analogy in..

Evolution compared with gravity

If you want to challenge them, then be my guest.. If you want to say it is ludicrous, then I agree with you..

Try chemical evolution...

I didn't compare it with gravity, I compared it with other theories in biology. My point was that while you can give a formula in phsyics for, say, the energy given off by a certain mass change, the same can't be done in biology for, say, whether or not a given person will succumb to a disease.
But we can make predictions based on germ theory, and HIV as the cause of AIDS and evolutionary theory. It's making and verifying predictions that give us confidence in the sciences - that's my point.

touchingcloth wrote:I didn't compare it with gravity, I compared it with other theories in biology. My point was that while you can give a formula in phsyics for, say, the energy given off by a certain mass change, the same can't be done in biology for, say, whether or not a given person will succumb to a disease.
But we can make predictions based on germ theory, and HIV as the cause of AIDS and evolutionary theory. It's making and verifying predictions that give us confidence in the sciences - that's my point.

Again, Darwinian evolution is not science.. It has nothing to with biology, except if you want to talk mirco-evolution.. Darwin made observations but no real mathematical calculations for it... You can't take Darwinism and formulate it to an equation like F=MA the force of gravity. The are no formulas for macro-evolution.. It's a belief.

Yes and look at an example where the faith often gets placed:

Gman Said:

Really? Well apparently ABC news is claiming the exact same thing.. Did they jump the boat too?

'Ardi:' 4.4 Million-Year-Old Fossil is Oldest Human Ancestor.

"Scientists today told the world what they know about Ardipithecus ramidus -- "Ardi" for short -- the oldest pre-human species yet found. Ardi lived 4.4 million years ago in what is now Ethiopia. "

"Six months ago, we would have said our common ancestor looked something like a chimp," said Tim White of the University of California at Berkeley, a senior researcher on the project. "Now all that has changed.

"What we found in Ethiopia at 4.4 million years ago is the closest we've ever come to that ancestor (our ancestor) along our own line," White said. "

Is Tim White retracting now too?

Yes, unfortunately ABC did jump the gun, but ABC is not science institute. Tim White has nothing to retract, he never stated it was A ancestor, merely 'the closest we've ever come to that ancestor'

It's your fact... Also you are wrong again. Evolutionists are trying to explain how life began.

This Biology book below called "Biology: Concepts and Connections" (copyright 2008) explains very clearly the origin and evolution of microbial life through prokaryotes and protists. If want you to, purchase this book then read the various sections on "The Origin of Species" and the "The Origin and Evolution of Microbial Life.

I don't believe I am wrong. Also Evolution does not seek to explain how life began. Just because some scientists who believe in evolution, are seeking to explain the origin of life, it doesn't mean they all are, nor does it mean the the discipline of Evolution is.

Gman wrote: Again, Darwinian evolution is not science.. It has nothing to with biology, except if you want to talk mirco-evolution.. Darwin made observations but no real mathematical calculations for it... You can't take Darwinism and formulate it to an equation like F=MA the force of gravity. The are no formulas for macro-evolution.. It's a belief.

I don't want to put words in your mouth here...but are you saying that evolution is a belief because it can't be condensed to a formula (or, as in the case of the example you gave, a law)?

limerick wrote:Yes, unfortunately ABC did jump the gun, but ABC is not science institute. Tim White has nothing to retract, he never stated it was A ancestor, merely 'the closest we've ever come to that ancestor'

So ABC is retracting their statement too? Where and when are they claiming that? Also you are wrong about Tim White. Look at the sentence above, he said that it was our ancestor as it relates to Lucy.

Also Tim White told a news conference in Washington sponsored by the journal Science, "Ardi is on our side of the family tree, not the chimpanzee side.''

But that's ok, if you want to say that they retracted their statements, I fully agree that they should.. Thanks.

limerick wrote:I don't believe I am wrong. Also Evolution does not seek to explain how life began. Just because some scientists who believe in evolution, are seeking to explain the origin of life, it doesn't mean they all are, nor does it mean the the discipline of Evolution is.

Some scientists? That book "Biology: Concepts and Connections" happens to be a college book here in the U.S.. They are certainly trying to explain how life began and even reference the Miller-Urey experiments.. Buy the book if you don't believe me..

touchingcloth wrote:I don't want to put words in your mouth here...but are you saying that evolution is a belief because it can't be condensed to a formula (or, as in the case of the example you gave, a law)?

No I said try doing that with macro-evolution...

Fossils don't prove evolution. You can't prove that any fossil had any children that lived. All a fossil proves is that something died. And now a great video called Evolutionists vs. Evolution.