Evidence for God from Science

Audie wrote:

Jac3510 wrote:I was referring to this.

Audie wrote:I think it really bothers our theists to think there might not be certainties.

If I said, "I think our atheists really are just pissed at God" you would accuse me, probably rightly, of making stuff up.

Good work! NowI am a hypocrite. According , that is,

to that noxious lie you made up about what I would do.

What is wrong with you?

Right, so you wouldn't accuse people of making things up. Because you haven't done it over and over and over again. U funny.

And besides, I didn't accuse you of being a hypocrite, so that's something else you made up about me. And so saying I told a noxious lie is something else you made up about me. So I suppose I could ask, in your words, what is wrong with you?

Jac3510 wrote:

Audie wrote:

Jac3510 wrote:I was referring to this.

Audie wrote:I think it really bothers our theists to think there might not be certainties.

If I said, "I think our atheists really are just pissed at God" you would accuse me, probably rightly, of making stuff up.

Good work! NowI am a hypocrite. According , that is,

to that noxious lie you made up about what I would do.

What is wrong with you?

Right, so you wouldn't accuse people of making things up. Because you haven't done it over and over and over again. U funny.

Or in your words, what is wrong with you?

Perhaps one of these days a perjury conviction will help you to understand concepts
that currently are beyond the scope of your "philosophy" and "logic".

Haha, ok, Audie. If you don't want to admit what's right in front of you, that's not really my problem.

Audie wrote:

RickD wrote:Looks like Audie is doing her modified version of a gish. Let's call it a min.

If you, like jac, have to try that hard to find fault, why do you
bother? Whats the agenda here?

Agenda?

Two choices. See how well you know me. Pick one.

1) I try to find mistakes in others, so my pathetic life won't seem so bad.

2) it was a joke.

I'll even give you a hint. It's not #1.

RickD wrote:

Audie wrote:

RickD wrote:Looks like Audie is doing her modified version of a gish. Let's call it a min.

If you, like jac, have to try that hard to find fault, why do you
bother? Whats the agenda here?

Agenda?

Two choices. See how well you know me. Pick one.

1) I try to find mistakes in others, so my pathetic life won't seem so bad.

2) it was a joke.

I'll even give you a hint. It's not #1.

1.5?

Audie wrote:

crochet1949 wrote:God is the One who created with His purpose -- We are the ones who don't know -- unless we read His Word that tells us some of it.

Looking at the human body -- all the systems that work together -- the heart -- brain -- the way that biologically men and women 'fit together' to produce a baby. And someone Discovered DNA -- It's been around just waiting to be discovered. Things like the inner workings of the cell -- the division process. Stuff like that doesn't 'just happen'.

I do see serious problems with evolution -- that stuff just happened to develop like they did. Because - the reality is -- that there's no reason for any of this world To be here. Except that we can see it IS here. Life continues one generation at a time -- so if everything isn't working right the person / animal will die.

How did the 1st heart begin beating and the first set of lungs get to breathing.

Something bigger than 'us' did it.

What do you think the "first heart" might have looked like? 4 chambers, auricle, dorsal aorta, and all that?

( "something bigger...". You sure? Is that one of those "certainties" that I am said to
have made up about others?

Lots has been posted since I wrote -- but I'm going to interrupt for a moment.

I'm looking at the heart beating from the human perspective. People have a 4-chamber heart -- so how did the first human heart get started. And then the various animals with their hearts -- they had to get started beating, too. There are various sizes of hearts depending on the animal. So - how Did these various hearts get beating?

Yes, I'm Sure that Someone / God / Did 'do it'.

Audie wrote:

Philip wrote:

Preachin' to the choir with a gish?

Tsk.

That's the easy response, Audie! Try instead, what is far more difficult, to address the specific issues the links bring up - particularly the astronomical mathematical improbabilities - not based upon speculation, but upon KNOWN science, innumerable studies, and observable way processes have always consistently worked. ESPECIALLY key to address for anyone who believes that a non-intelligence and merely random, eternally existing things produced even the CONDITIONS that could make evolution possible - much less the actualities and processes.

Of course, those who would insist in THEISTIC evolution have challenges in Scripture - particularly IF they insist Adam and Eve were the results of evolutionary processes. And if they do, at LEAST they also insist upon God making what would otherwise be impossible, possible - that the serious, otherwise impossible gaps were glued together by His power and super intelligence.

Perhaps Audie should also read parts one and two, to "Evolution as Mythology":

http://www.reasons.org/articles/evoluti ... -is-a-myth

http://www.reasons.org/articles/evoluti ... fic-theory

Here's a little softball issue outtake from the article:

"As an example, cytochrome c, a small protein found throughout the biological realm, had to appear early in the evolutionary process. Yet information theorist Hubert Yockey calculated a probability of ~10-75 to generate it spontaneously from an amino acid-rich environment. To put this into perspective: a 10-75 chance is less likely than winning the Powerball lottery nine weeks in a row, buying only one ticket per week!

But it gets worse. Life is composed of many more-complex molecules than cytochrome c. Murray Eden of Massachusetts Institute of Technology calculated a probability of ~10-313 to spontaneously bring polypeptide sequences together into functional proteins. Simple self-sustaining life requires ~1,500-2,000 gene products, and Hoyle estimated a probability of ~10-40,000 to obtain 2,000 enzymes in a random trial. Physicist Harold Morowitz has calculated that if a large batch of bacteria in a sealed container is heated so every chemical bond is broken, then cooled slowly to allow the atoms to form new bonds and come to equilibrium, there is a probability of ~10-100,000,000,000 that a living bacterium will be present at the end.

How low a probability do mathematicians believe makes an event essentially impossible? Émile Borel has estimated 10-50; and William Dembski has calculated a lower limit of 10-150, based on the number of elementary particles in the universe and the age of the universe. Yet the probability of abiogenesis is far, far less than either figure!"

And this beauty of a quote - in defending abiogenesis, biologist Francis Crick acknowledged in 1981:

"An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to be satisfied to get it going."

Was Crick just some isolated loonie with a correspondence course PhD? Nooooo! He was a British molecular biologist, biophysicist, and neuroscientist, Nobel Prize winner, and most noted for being a co-discoverer of the structure of the DNA molecule in 1953."

So, to believe that EITHER exhaustive number of the necessary conditions and available chemistries, etc. would even have existed, certainly when one realizes the immense improbabilities of life springing forth unassisted, blindly/randomly - really, this takes either great faith in something so unreasonable to believe, and/or a complete denial of the improbabilities. Really, it's a faith in speculation that goes beyond reason. But that is where all non-theists find themselves, whether they admit it or not.

Postin' a gish aint what I'd call hard.

Here is hard: state one fact that is contrary to ToE.

Everything else is just preachin'.

I suggest any theory is only as good as the 'facts' it is built on. So let's start at the beginning, to find one fact that is contrary to hypothesis that amino acids and elements can undergo some sort of chemistry to form into a complex factory of reproduction.

Which hypothesis do you support? Organic soup, a little outdated these days, panspermia that shifts the same problem elsewhere; DNA first.. long dead, RNA first? Proteins first? So far RNA, DNA and proteins cannot survive long enough to evolve into anything. That is what many failed experiments looking to support the notion of molecules is actually demonstrating.

Let's take a look at how the TOE story plays out next. "Life" that is meant to be able to come into being, not only on earth but throughout the universe, actually only happened once here where earth has it all going for it eg Goldilocks positioning... That story would have been much more believable if there were multiple genesis and evidence of totally unrelated lines of life from multiple genesis. Didn't happen according to TOE supporters! One event, over billions of years kinda sounds like a miracle, even if one has faith in the bacteria to man hypothesis.

Philip wrote:Neo, you are speaking as if we are talking about a HUMAN planner, or one that must "do" constant maintenance. A God Who can speak a universe into existence does not need to worry about nuts, bolts and processes - as they are controlled by His spoken word - as for whatever the details require, per His desires and purposes. HOWEVER, you can bet that the universe that occurred is precisely what He desired, minus the sin. But allowing the sin was necessary for free will. But He planned for that as well. Again, your idea of "poor PLANNING" suggests formulation of responses to something He has UNanticipated. As God is all-knowing and all-powerful, those constraints do not shackle Him. There could never have been a moment He didn't know ALL of what HE would once day do, or ALL of what we would, or of any other thing or event.

Ok, let me clarify, if I didn't earlier, I think he did know, and perhaps he willed it to be exactly as you see today. There are lots of problems with it, but I will not discuss it right now (including the Andromeda racing towards the milky way).

Neo, you well know that you should not take a literal interpretation of all of Scripture. But you choose to do so of the Creation accounts. You know the reasonable potential for their other possible meanings, and you know there are many Bible scholars who would agree that it is a mistake to assume a literal meaning of the time issue, OR that the relevant Creation passages are even speaking to things in a scientific way. So, a pretty dumb thing to assert - or at least a very narrow way of viewing it.

But when it comes to your argument you say and I'll quote you " The Bible clearly asserts the former!" You have no doubt about YOUR interpretation here?

Why can't others take a different note on it then how you interpret it?

Neo, first place, I am agnostic on whether or not God has created other beings in THIS universe. I am only speaking of the EARTH. God addressed Scripture to human beings living on planet earth - THAT is the context I am referencing. And there is only once creature remotely like us on earth. And I DO believe there MIGHT be other life or beings elsewhere. It may be that they are so far away, that we will never encounter, know of, or even communicate with them - meaning that IF they exist, this is why Scripture doesn't reference it. But as God is the Author of THIS universe, how any others might exist, either independently or totally unconnected or that we are not related to (per a multiverse, etc.). Also, I most certainly do NOT take a limited view of God's creation! But man on earth, as a spiritual creature made by God, we most certainly are unique in how we reflect capabilities and characteristics of God. But as for limitations, God has NONE.

Let me go further, as I have before, on our uniqueness, or the earth. In addition to there MAYBE being other beings in our universe (or not), if we think of our universe as being but ONE "story" God has Authored, how many more might there likely be? God is ETERNAL/has always existed. He doesn't change. He clearly delights in creating and restoring. He is always active - whether in the spiritual realm or in this one. Are we to think God didn't create before OUR universe began? WHY???!!! He may well have been creating other universes and stories, for eternity past? And why NOT? Do they still exist? Does He still have a purpose for them? Are they any OTHER dimensions and spiritual realms? Are we the ONLY in the physical realm? Who knows? Maybe? Maybe NOT! Nothing God might have done, of beauty, glory and wonder, would surprise me. But I sure don't think the Father, Son and Spirit sat around doing nothing for eternity past, all the while just dreaming about the day they would create there ultimate creation: MAN! How narcissistic are we to think THAT? Nonetheless, we most certainly are the zenith of His creations HERE - there is only one specie like us!

You may have missed the overarching point I was trying to make, that is, it is irrelevant if something is out there or not, or life exists elsewhere or that we are truly unique as in all of creation; but that the universe as we see it, couldn't have come the way it has if all God wanted to do was here on earth. It is so redundant that it is beyond reason. Holding all parameters you cited that if we are to be here via God's will and still see all the universe scattered and expanding further and further as I type this, it could not have come any other way then the laws of the universe working automatically. Whether you say it is willed or not - I'd say if it is willed, it is a terrible waste and if it is not willed then you need to reasses your argument seriously.

To clarify, from my argument it makes sense if the universe shaped itself out with the laws of physics, it was not all intentional and that explains the 200 billions and more galaxies as redundancy. I don't blame God either.

However, if I am to understand you, and correct me if I am wrong here, you believe in an old earth and universe, a 14 billion years old universe and that through one process or another. And it took life millions of years to reach its present shape, evolution or creation say what you will, it's irrelevant to the argument here, but you do believe that everything took a lot of time? But you also say that all of this is done entirely for man, for us, His unique creature, at least where our planet is concerned, am I right?

I am presuming that you will push into mystery if I asked you why would God go through so much trouble, generations and eons of creatures rising and falling until we came to man? Why not just make man, have some animals around, let there be free will and then let the chips fall where they may, we'd obviously have the same outcome as today.

The problem I am having is that you are not a YEC precisely because of the evidence and time issue in the literal interpretation of the creation story, you admit, some form of evolution happened but you assert it was specifically God guided (for which you show no evidence at all) but on the other hand you also admit that life took billions of years to reach here. I do not know what to make of it? I seriously don't.

Do you realize that if special interference in evolution was needed, there would be no need for evolution at all? Why not simply make man as is? That is the far best solution, or what would make sense. Instead we go through evolution, guided as it may be, and finally get to, man. I say what a complete waste of time, nor to mention the needless epochs of creatures. You may say it happened like that but to me, it's sloppy, and unlike God.

I don't know what He was thinking. But that doesn't change the fact that MAN is the ultimate creature He created ON EARTH! Which is my reference. And that doesn't take away from untold galaxies or whatever else. It's just a fact. As for how many books/universes God has ALSO authored - as in how may "books" on God's bookcase , or as for how many BOOKCASES He has, no number would surprise me, because He is unlimited in ability as to what He can or has done, AND He's been the same God with the same characteristics, abilities, and sensibilities, for all of eternity past. That's a LONG "time!"

Research Tardigrades, I think they are best things God created on earth. Those things survived the last 5 extinction events. Isn't that something? They can go years without water, they can survive in almost every region and climate including extreme ones.

And that brings me to the Andromeda thing? What do you believe about that? Do you think it's part of God's will that it is hurling towards us for a death run, blasting God's best creation into oblivion? What kind of plan is that?

God has purpose in whatever He creates. Scripture tells us that earth will not go on as it always has, but that there will be a merging of a New Heaven and restored earth. I really don't see why you seem to think God's "plan" doesn't know certain things or has flaws, or whatever. Either He is in control or not. Either you believe what Scripture says about the end of OUR time or not. God IS the science - that is, the science being how He has made things to work, for their purposes, for their specific times for which He made them.

I have no doubt that he creates with purpose god he knows the outcomes anyway, and that is why I think that he let some things just unfold as they do. He doesn't actively do or change or tinker with things. Because some things make no sense at all. And it is not about belief, WE CAN SEE that the Andromeda is heading this way. So say good bye to new heaven and earth if that is what you are saying.

Don't you see the problem Phil, the contradiction? New heaven and earth, eternal some might say and compared to eternal, some billion years down the road the Andromeda hits us, and planet earth is devoured, to say the least, (the andromeda is huge compared to the milky way), what happens to the new earth, new Jerusalem? If God intends that to be here, why will that other galaxy towards us in the first place? What happened to precision and fine tuning and control?

If I am to believe you, God is controlling things counter to his own will? That makes no sense, Phil.

It is irrelevant if you think God will intervene here as well and save earth miraculously, though I personally doubt that, but let's say you do think that, and that is fine. The problem still remains however. What we are seeing is other willed or planned in God's planner or not? If it is planned, it makes no sesne for it runs counter to what God promised, new heaven and earth eternal etc. etc. If it is not willed, then your argument fails and this debate ends.

Neo, I'm not really sure where you are coming at things. But I know you appear to not believe key parts of Scripture as they are written. Some of that appears to come from your literal reading of Genesis portions that were not necessarily meant to be taken so - or that may well not even have been addressing the SCIENTIFIC understandings of the Creation. If not, there's not much to say to you. You appear to believe in some type of unknown, scientific mysticism, in which God has set the clocks and just watches things develop, but not in a specific way. But anyone thinking that God hasn't total control over how things turn out, or that man is some quirk of time and chance - really, there is NO chance with God. Because that means He could be surprised. That would mean He could put into motion things He hasn't the ability to control, or doesn't desire to - both of which are totally contradicted by Scripture. So God maintaining control makes him a "poor planner?" How absurd!

Instead of repeating how I "appear to not believe key parts of Scripture as they are written", which somehow you never forget to cite, and I am not sure why it is - not that it makes any of the arguments I present less credible, but anyway I'd really like you to address the question less you be committing a fallacy. I noticed the slant on your ending paragraph where you kind of labeled me as a lost cause. Even if I am a heretic, let's agree, at least, that the onus is on you to defend YOUR argument? What does it has to do with whether I believe in a different interpretation of the scripture?

To be honest I find it amusing that you somehow consider yourself on a higher ground when it comes to scriptures, labeling me as someone who doesn't believe in key parts of scripture...but you yourself, to accommodate your scientific beliefs, twist its voice and meaning and then claim higher ground.

Well, Phil, it doesn't add any weight to your argument nor it takes away any from mine, so let's not bring it up unless we are dealing with the topic of inerrancy? Would you agree?

Genesis portions that were not necessarily meant to be taken so

I wonder who told you to believe that? The scriptures? I hope not.

Because that means He could be surprised.

Let me clarify, to me, it doesn't mean that. To me it means he knows this is happening or going to happen but he didn't will it. I am saying that there is a difference in God's knowing something and actively willing it.

The only thing absurd here is you wanting things to go both ways, so please let's all agree my views are problematic, fine. I am ok with that. But I hope you can now address my questions regarding yours. There are glaring problems in what you are saying, and I would like to see how to address those. It is a problem for me too but I see a partial solution. By your view, I can't see any.

Thank you. As with all arguments that have passionate advocates, I am writing in good spirits and heart. I mean no disrespect. I hope you see it the same way. I actually am enjoying the conversation.

Mazzy wrote:

Audie wrote:

Philip wrote:

Preachin' to the choir with a gish?

Tsk.

That's the easy response, Audie! Try instead, what is far more difficult, to address the specific issues the links bring up - particularly the astronomical mathematical improbabilities - not based upon speculation, but upon KNOWN science, innumerable studies, and observable way processes have always consistently worked. ESPECIALLY key to address for anyone who believes that a non-intelligence and merely random, eternally existing things produced even the CONDITIONS that could make evolution possible - much less the actualities and processes.

Of course, those who would insist in THEISTIC evolution have challenges in Scripture - particularly IF they insist Adam and Eve were the results of evolutionary processes. And if they do, at LEAST they also insist upon God making what would otherwise be impossible, possible - that the serious, otherwise impossible gaps were glued together by His power and super intelligence.

Perhaps Audie should also read parts one and two, to "Evolution as Mythology":

http://www.reasons.org/articles/evoluti ... -is-a-myth

http://www.reasons.org/articles/evoluti ... fic-theory

Here's a little softball issue outtake from the article:

"As an example, cytochrome c, a small protein found throughout the biological realm, had to appear early in the evolutionary process. Yet information theorist Hubert Yockey calculated a probability of ~10-75 to generate it spontaneously from an amino acid-rich environment. To put this into perspective: a 10-75 chance is less likely than winning the Powerball lottery nine weeks in a row, buying only one ticket per week!

But it gets worse. Life is composed of many more-complex molecules than cytochrome c. Murray Eden of Massachusetts Institute of Technology calculated a probability of ~10-313 to spontaneously bring polypeptide sequences together into functional proteins. Simple self-sustaining life requires ~1,500-2,000 gene products, and Hoyle estimated a probability of ~10-40,000 to obtain 2,000 enzymes in a random trial. Physicist Harold Morowitz has calculated that if a large batch of bacteria in a sealed container is heated so every chemical bond is broken, then cooled slowly to allow the atoms to form new bonds and come to equilibrium, there is a probability of ~10-100,000,000,000 that a living bacterium will be present at the end.

How low a probability do mathematicians believe makes an event essentially impossible? Émile Borel has estimated 10-50; and William Dembski has calculated a lower limit of 10-150, based on the number of elementary particles in the universe and the age of the universe. Yet the probability of abiogenesis is far, far less than either figure!"

And this beauty of a quote - in defending abiogenesis, biologist Francis Crick acknowledged in 1981:

"An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to be satisfied to get it going."

Was Crick just some isolated loonie with a correspondence course PhD? Nooooo! He was a British molecular biologist, biophysicist, and neuroscientist, Nobel Prize winner, and most noted for being a co-discoverer of the structure of the DNA molecule in 1953."

So, to believe that EITHER exhaustive number of the necessary conditions and available chemistries, etc. would even have existed, certainly when one realizes the immense improbabilities of life springing forth unassisted, blindly/randomly - really, this takes either great faith in something so unreasonable to believe, and/or a complete denial of the improbabilities. Really, it's a faith in speculation that goes beyond reason. But that is where all non-theists find themselves, whether they admit it or not.

Postin' a gish aint what I'd call hard.

Here is hard: state one fact that is contrary to ToE.

Everything else is just preachin'.

I suggest any theory is only as good as the 'facts' it is built on. So let's start at the beginning, to find one fact that is contrary to hypothesis that amino acids and elements can undergo some sort of chemistry to form into a complex factory of reproduction.

Which hypothesis do you support? Organic soup, a little outdated these days, panspermia that shifts the same problem elsewhere; DNA first.. long dead, RNA first? Proteins first? So far RNA, DNA and proteins cannot survive long enough to evolve into anything. That is what many failed experiments looking to support the notion of molecules is actually demonstrating.

Let's take a look at how the TOE story plays out next. "Life" that is meant to be able to come into being, not only on earth but throughout the universe, actually only happened once here where earth has it all going for it eg Goldilocks positioning... That story would have been much more believable if there were multiple genesis and evidence of totally unrelated lines of life from multiple genesis. Didn't happen according to TOE supporters! One event, over billions of years kinda sounds like a miracle, even if one has faith in the bacteria to man hypothesis.

Of course a theory is only as good as the supporting facts.
Too obvious to need saying.

Here are some facts: ToE does not address the origin of life. No problem, serious or otherwise
with evolution or the theories (s) thereof has been identified in this thread.

Some more facts:
ToE is not about life elsewhere in the universe. It is not about faith.
And, it is not about "bacteria" -to-man. Or woman.

crochet1949 wrote:

Audie wrote:

crochet1949 wrote:God is the One who created with His purpose -- We are the ones who don't know -- unless we read His Word that tells us some of it.

Looking at the human body -- all the systems that work together -- the heart -- brain -- the way that biologically men and women 'fit together' to produce a baby. And someone Discovered DNA -- It's been around just waiting to be discovered. Things like the inner workings of the cell -- the division process. Stuff like that doesn't 'just happen'.

I do see serious problems with evolution -- that stuff just happened to develop like they did. Because - the reality is -- that there's no reason for any of this world To be here. Except that we can see it IS here. Life continues one generation at a time -- so if everything isn't working right the person / animal will die.

How did the 1st heart begin beating and the first set of lungs get to breathing.

Something bigger than 'us' did it.

What do you think the "first heart" might have looked like? 4 chambers, auricle, dorsal aorta, and all that?

( "something bigger...". You sure? Is that one of those "certainties" that I am said to
have made up about others?

Lots has been posted since I wrote -- but I'm going to interrupt for a moment.

I'm looking at the heart beating from the human perspective. People have a 4-chamber heart -- so how did the first human heart get started. And then the various animals with their hearts -- they had to get started beating, too. There are various sizes of hearts depending on the animal. So - how Did these various hearts get beating?

Yes, I'm Sure that Someone / God / Did 'do it'.

You are looking at it from the perspective of one chosen reading of one chosen religion.

Received knowledge.

If the assumption of facts not in evidence is that all creatures were created, poof, as they are now
then your q about how the first heart started to beat is answered and the purpose of asking is merely
rhetorical, as in "See, I am right."


It is very human to believe in "received wisdom / knowledge". As children
we believe implicitely what we are told. Child mortality would overwhelm reproduction
if we didnt.

Then there is the perspective of asking why, that comes later.

That is another aspect to human nature, a countercurrent to the implicit acceptance.
It leads us to test, explore, question.

Of course, we are all different in how exploratory we are.

We all like explanations, much as we vary in what sort of explanation we find adequate for
what sorts of things.

Evolution is an explanation for a great many things that cannot be adequately addressed via
the god did it 6000 yrs ago version of things.

From "evolution perspective"..
The simple answer to your q is that there was no first heart No first beat.
No more than a first person to speak English, and for analgous reasons.

I could provide a good explain for how the heart evolved.

It would be time consuming, and directed to, no put down intended, but to deaf ears.

So I wont be doing it.

In summary, those are good questions even if not in the way you intended.

In order for Me to have a heart that beats -- I'm an alive person, my parents got together and my mother gave birth to me -- the 1st evidence that I was alive in her womb, was the heart beat that the Dr heard and then the first flutter of movement that I felt. So -- trace back How far ? to the first set of parents that gave birth to their children. The 1st heart beat ! but back Then there was no technowledgey available to Hear that 1st heartbeat of the tiny child in the womb.
Every person Does have a pulse rate, also.
Speaking a language is different than the 1st heart beat. A person has to be Alive in order To speak a language. Their heart would be beating.
There HAD to be a first heart to start beating -- because it would indicate a person who's alive. And it takes two people - a male and a female To produce a baby and that baby's heart started to beat Somehow. That spark of life. An example from the automotive world -- in order for a car to start, a battery is essential. The car has to be made by Someone -- designed by someone -- put together by someone and the battery made by someone. And to jump start a battery requires outside assistance from cables and people to attach those cables.
If someone tried to convince the world that a car simply Happened by Chance -- parts just somehow materialized out of materials that somehow just came together and over time all those parts just happened to fit together in just the right way -- and somehow everything works together so that the car started and drove and the same thing with all the other thousands of cars being driven today -- and the gas and oil and water and ignition starter -- all just happened -- ya know what the average person would say?! That Someone Is Nuts. After all -- what car starts out as a 'tiny part' and evolves from There and a car won't go Anywhere without the ignition being turned on.
If there's one thing I'm NOT it's a car mechanic -- but I've driven a variety of cars since I was 16. I know enough About cars to know they didn't evolve.

neo-x wrote:Do you realize that if special interference in evolution was needed, there would be no need for evolution at all? Why not simply make man as is? That is the far best solution, or what would make sense. Instead we go through evolution, guided as it may be, and finally get to, man. I say what a complete waste of time, nor to mention the needless epochs of creatures. You may say it happened like that but to me, it's sloppy, and unlike God.

This is one of the reasons I liked this post. You raised a lot of good points, neo, but I have a huge concern that a lot of Christians are cherry picking ideas they like and treating evidence like a buffet--I'll take fourteen billion years and micro evolution, a little bit of direct creation, throw in a sprinkling of divine direction for evolution . . . hmm, oh a local flood looks like a nice dessert, and got top it with a historical Adam who really lived almost a thousand years! YUM!!!

My point, I know, is much broader than yours here, but I think you are citing a specific instance of the same thing. It's why we have absolutely no business starting with a conclusion and then looking for evidence in any field, be it hard sciences, social sciences, or theology. You have to look at the evidence as it presents itself--and this is the hard part--without deciding beforehand to harmonize it all. Because the moment you start insisting on harmonization, you simply do not give yourself the ability to see the evidence as it really is. Your opinion and preferences start to drive how you look at things, and that makes it neigh impossible to see anything clearly at all.

Regarding your example specifically, reminds me of a quote I made use of several years ago in a paper I wrote and presented titled "Grounding the Kalam." You can see the relevant portion with some comments here at 53:30; but the quote I have in mind goes as follows:

• As tempting as it often may be, it is a mistake to consider the failure of science to explain something as a proof of God's work. Such failures are nothing more or less than a demonstration of how far science has progressed, and a pointer to where some progress still needs to be made. Believing in a great creator means not doubting the quality of His creation. It is ironic that we often try to prove the existence of God by claims that essentially say He isn't such a great creator.

The underlined portion strikes me as a good assessment of a lot of what passes as apologetics and, even more sadly, theological analysis of things like evolution or other scientifically related/motivated discussions. It's very much of a shame and, frankly, I find it terribly embarrassing . . . far, far, far more embarrassing than biblical claims, however scientifically incorrect they may be, about the earth being a few thousand years old or there being a global flood or whatever.

crochet wrote:
If there's one thing I'm NOT it's a car mechanic -- but I've driven a variety of cars since I was 16. I know enough About cars to know they didn't evolve.

Crochet,

I hate to be the one to break the bad news to you, but the automobile has evolved.
http://blog.world-mysteries.com/science ... evolution/

I think we need to understand what evolution(biological) is not. It's not a scientific theory on how life began. It's not a scientific theory on how life got us to the point we are now, without God.

It's a theory, based on the interpretation of evidence, that tries to show how life on earth has changed, from its beginning, until now.

Whether the theory of evolution is true or not, it doesn't address how life began. At least that's what biological evolution adherents keep saying.

Conflating "evolution", with "no God", does nobody any good when trying to see how the theory of evolution stands on its own.

Now to me, I'd like to know if there is one specific theory of evolution, that is outlined somewhere, and that scientists who believe in evolution, agree upon?

Or, are there differing views on what is actually meant by biological evolution?

RickD wrote:

crochet wrote:
If there's one thing I'm NOT it's a car mechanic -- but I've driven a variety of cars since I was 16. I know enough About cars to know they didn't evolve.

Crochet,

I hate to be the one to break the bad news to you, but the automobile has evolved.
http://blog.world-mysteries.com/science ... evolution/

I think we need to understand what evolution(biological) is not. It's not a scientific theory on how life began. It's not a scientific theory on how life got us to the point we are now, without God.

It's a theory, based on the interpretation of evidence, that tries to show how life on earth has changed, from its beginning, until now.

Whether the theory of evolution is true or not, it doesn't address how life began. At least that's what biological evolution adherents keep saying.

Conflating "evolution", with "no God", does nobody any good when trying to see how the theory of evolution stands on its own.

Now to me, I'd like to know if there is one specific theory of evolution, that is outlined somewhere, and that scientists who believe in evolution, agree upon?

Or, are there differing views on what is actually meant by biological evolution?

Good points, tho if I may, asking all scientidts to agree is asking a bit much.

Historians agree there was Roman Empire. And that something happened to it.

Whether any two historians agree on all the details is another matter.

The lack of complete agreement on details is a sideshow.

Why is it important to you?

neo wrote:
Life coming out of the abiogenesis idea is not really that strange to me either. I think it's very much probable and likely may have had happened that way. Once you allow the law of physics and chemistry and biology to have their way life would come out of it logically. Just like if you allow gravity alone, it would shape universes.

Neo,

Can you explain any evidence that shows me why you think it's likely that life on earth began by abiogenesis? I've searched on evidence for abiogenesis, and I'm only coming up with hypotheses, and speculation. Feel free to post a link.