Evidence for God from Science

Jac3510 wrote:As a creationist, I'm saying your reasons are not legit. But talk to bippy. He's probably the creationist here with the most study on the subject. Convince him your reasons for rejecting evolution are "legit" and I'll concede it to you after all. But what I have seen from you, your arguments against evolution, are . . . well . . . they're pretty bad. Not quite munkys r still heer, so that's good, I suppose. But definitely not "legit" in my assessment.

Jac I don't think you understand evolution and the evidence used to confirm it like I do. If you don't know about it? I'm going over your head,just like you do with philosophy a lot of times that you know well.I'm speaking to evolutionists on their terms,they are just playing dumb. As far as bippy I think that I really only disagree with ID'ers about natural selection. They seem to give that to evolution while I don't. Because what is happening is they are just proving life can survive a hostile environment which is common knowledge overlooking that natural selection had no effect on it after it adapted and niether did mutations or speciation.It is just seeing what they want to see.

You aren't going over my head, ACB. But if it makes you feel better to think so, then fine. You'll get no argument from me.

abelcainsbrother wrote:As far as bippy I think that I really only disagree with ID'ers about natural selection. They seem to give that to evolution while I don't. Because what is happening is they are just proving life can survive a hostile environment which is common knowledge overlooking that natural selection had no effect on it after it adapted. It is just seeing what they want to see.

Acknowledging natural selection isn't giving to evolution. Natural selection is seen, yet it's more about population ratios between species that are better suited to their environment. While Darwin used such in an evolutionary picture for determining the fittest of naturally evolved species, natural selection doesn't give rise to new species.

This is why many who understand evolutionary science, add in "genetic mutations". Natural selection weeds out those that are less suitable to the environment, by populations of such species decreasing and going extinct, while mutations are the driving force of evolutionary changes and new species.

Nonetheless, many leading ID proponents don't just accept natural selection, but also genetic mutations and even Darwinian evolution to an extent, but believe such isn't enough to account for all we see on its own.

Jac3510 wrote:You aren't going over my head, ACB. But if it makes you feel better to think so, then fine. You'll get no argument from me.

Don't be so sensitive. It wasn't meant as a slight or whatever. This is about the evidence used in evolution science and what is confirmed and what is not confirmed.

Kurieuo wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:As far as bippy I think that I really only disagree with ID'ers about natural selection. They seem to give that to evolution while I don't. Because what is happening is they are just proving life can survive a hostile environment which is common knowledge overlooking that natural selection had no effect on it after it adapted. It is just seeing what they want to see.

Acknowledging natural selection isn't giving to evolution. Natural selection is seen, yet it's more about population ratios between species that are better suited to their environment. While Darwin used such in an evolutionary picture for determining the fittest of naturally evolved species, natural selection doesn't give rise to new species.

This is why many who understand evolutionary science, add in "genetic mutations". Natural selection weeds out those that are less suitable to the environment, by populations of such species decreasing and going extinct, while mutations are the driving force of evolutionary changes and new species.

Nonetheless, the many leading ID proponents do accept biological evolution, but believe it isn't enough to account for all we see on its own.

You are just explaining how evolutionists explain natural selection,but what does their evidence confirm? Mutations,also.Would it matter to you or anybody that explaining these beliefs like natural selection,mutations,speciation,etc like evolutionists do is not confirmed at all when we examine the evidence they use? What good is explaining natural selection if your evidence does'nt confirm it has any effect?

Their own evidence shows that life is either able to adapt or not and if not it goes extinct. It is not some invisible force like natural selection weeding out those less suitable to their environment. The environment has no effect other than life can adapt or it cannot.

That is what I'm getting at and yes ID'ers accept biological evolution up to a point but I think they are giving too much benefit of the doubt to evolution.

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:As far as bippy I think that I really only disagree with ID'ers about natural selection. They seem to give that to evolution while I don't. Because what is happening is they are just proving life can survive a hostile environment which is common knowledge overlooking that natural selection had no effect on it after it adapted. It is just seeing what they want to see.

Acknowledging natural selection isn't giving to evolution. Natural selection is seen, yet it's more about population ratios between species that are better suited to their environment. While Darwin used such in an evolutionary picture for determining the fittest of naturally evolved species, natural selection doesn't give rise to new species.

This is why many who understand evolutionary science, add in "genetic mutations". Natural selection weeds out those that are less suitable to the environment, by populations of such species decreasing and going extinct, while mutations are the driving force of evolutionary changes and new species.

Nonetheless, the many leading ID proponents do accept biological evolution, but believe it isn't enough to account for all we see on its own.

You are just explaining how evolutionists explain natural selection,but what does their evidence confirm? Mutations,also.Would it matter to you or anybody that explaining these beliefs like natural selection,mutations,speciation,etc like evolutionists do is not confirmed at all when we examine the evidence they use? What good is explaining natural selection if your evidence does'nt confirm it has any effect? That is what I'm getting at and yes ID'ers accept biological evolution up to a point but I think they are giving too much benefit of the doubt to evolution.

I don't wish to defend the position of evolution, but one can't say it doesn't make logical sense. It is coherent, and often, given the many strange beliefs and ideas around -- that's often enough bypass people's BS filter and convince many without seeing the millions of years evolutionary change that evolutionary science says happened.

Christians past gave answers promoted as truth that many people believed, which today we know is just not true, leaving a lasting almost irremovable blight upon Christianity. Such should have never overstepped. It's now the turn of secular folk to promote what they see as true. They'll overstep their mark, I see them doing it. Humans are good at doing that, no matter their beliefs.

Give it half a century, maybe a century, and I'm sure there will be a lot of heads shaking in disbelief.

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Jac3510 wrote:You aren't going over my head, ACB. But if it makes you feel better to think so, then fine. You'll get no argument from me.

Don't be so sensitive. It wasn't meant as a slight or whatever. This is about the evidence used in evolution science and what is confirmed and what is not confirmed.

I'm not being sensitive, ACB. But if it makes you feel better to think so, then fine. You'll get no argument from me.

Jac3510 wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Jac3510 wrote:You aren't going over my head, ACB. But if it makes you feel better to think so, then fine. You'll get no argument from me.

Don't be so sensitive. It wasn't meant as a slight or whatever. This is about the evidence used in evolution science and what is confirmed and what is not confirmed.

I'm not being sensitive, ACB. But if it makes you feel better to think so, then fine. You'll get no argument from me.

Brian, calm down. I'm thinking you might want to look into one of those anger management classes.

Kurieuo wrote:

Jac3510 wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Jac3510 wrote:You aren't going over my head, ACB. But if it makes you feel better to think so, then fine. You'll get no argument from me.

Don't be so sensitive. It wasn't meant as a slight or whatever. This is about the evidence used in evolution science and what is confirmed and what is not confirmed.

I'm not being sensitive, ACB. But if it makes you feel better to think so, then fine. You'll get no argument from me.

Brian, calm down. I'm thinking you might want to look into one of those anger management classes.

Audacity wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Audie wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Jac3510 wrote:I'm curious who Audie has in mind, as while Wise has made the claim she's talking about, I've not seen it repeated here. Even as frustratingly intractable as ACB is with his gappery nonsense, he at least pays lip service to the notion he could be wrong. I really don't know anybody here who has claimed they can't be wrong, either explicitly or implicitly.

But regardless, this:


is, I think, excellent advice.

Jac is right I will never get to a point where I refuse to admit I could be wrong,especially when it comes to the bible and God's word ?............. No other creation theory could or can.

Do you admit you could be wrong about God? Like, the bible isnt really God's word?
That "God" gives you no help at all interpreting it?

"No other can or could". Reckon you figure evolution cannot be right, gap cannot be wrong. That is what you just said.

I know I'm not wrong about God because I was born again but it is possible I could be wrong about certain interpretations. I don't reckon evolution can't be right. It is based on a lack of evidence that I reject it. I go by evidence to determine what is true or not.

Naturally all creationists reject the evidence backing evolution, or at least enough of it, but I'm curious as to what kind of evidence you need to make evolution plausible.

Actually there are a lot of creationists that accept evolution. That is a tough question to answer because evolution is so vast.But instead of just preaching about evolution,micro-evolution,macroevolution,adaptation,natural selection,speciation,mutations,the whole evolution tree,etc, how about presenting evidence that what you are explaining about them is true,that they really exist and that they can happen to cause life to evolve? Instead of just believing in these things by faith,assumption and imagination.

Most people that accept evolution just believe what a scientist says or what a science book says but they don't look for evidence to confirm any of it is true. I think to a lot of people it is more believable than the bible because of what most creationists teach it says and so they choose to believe it over the bible. But they don't realize that both could be wrong,they only want to think most creationists are wrong. I believe creationism is in a crisis and has been for a long time but there is denial about it.

abelcainsbrother wrote:Actually there are a lot of creationists that accept evolution. That is a tough question to answer because evolution is so vast.But instead of just preaching about evolution,micro-evolution,macroevolution,adaptation,natural selection,speciation,mutations,the whole evolution tree,etc, how about presenting evidence that what you are explaining about them is true,that they really exist and that they can happen to cause life to evolve? Instead of just believing in these things by faith,assumption and imagination.

Most people that accept evolution just believe what a scientist says or what a science book says but they don't look for evidence to confirm any of it is true. I think to a lot of people it is more believable than the bible because of what most creationists teach it says and so they choose to believe it over the bible. But they don't realize that both could be wrong,they only want to think most creationists are wrong. I believe creationism is in a crisis and has been for a long time but there is denial about it.

Come on man, this is just ridiculous with you. You keep repeating the same thing over and over that I wonder if you actually believe it because it is simply not true that no one has presented you with any evidence. They have, plenty of it. From hugh to audie and even myself on those rare occasions I thought I could reach you. Look, I am simply incapable of caring any less with reference to your views vis-a-vis evolution, creation, gap theory, the flood, or even Catholicism. What I care about is honesty and for you to claim you weren't presented with evidence is a flat-out lie. You can say you weren't convinced by the evidence presented, you can say you offered counter-arguments why the evidence shown does not fit the conclusion drawn. But what you absolutely cannot say is that you weren't presented with any evidence.

The evidence for evolution is vast and only deniable by those that simply choose to not believe it.

PaulSacramento wrote:The evidence for evolution is vast and only deniable by those that simply choose to not believe it.

Rubbish, the evidence for evolution is not "vast", in fact the evidence that is available is quite small; a very many people smarter than you, I or anyone on this board deny evolution.

Could evolution really create something more complex than morse code?

Stu wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:The evidence for evolution is vast and only deniable by those that simply choose to not believe it.

Rubbish, the evidence for evolution is not "vast", in fact the evidence that is available is quite small; a very many people smarter than you, I or anyone on this board deny evolution.

Could evolution really create something more complex than morse code?

You really think biological evolution was the first 'type' of evolution there was? No, evolution started on a much much grander scale, literally astronomical. How many generations of galaxies and stars did it take to generate the types of elements necessary to even begin talking about life, any kind of life, not just intelligent one? The first cycle started with hydrogen and helium, then a second cycle produced oxygen and carbon, then a 3rd cycle complex molecules emerged and the rest, as they say, is history. What if evolution is built into the system from the get-go so that, at some level (maybe quantum, or even cosmic) instead of entropy it is reverse entropy that is the order of business? In that case we would see exactly what we have seen, more complexity with time and it is no different with biological complexity once it gets started. There is plenty of evidence for biological evolution. I would not summarily discount any other theory but on the evidentiary scale, biological evolution is on solid ground.

PaulSacramento wrote:The evidence for evolution is vast and only deniable by those that simply choose to not believe it.

I guess ab really does think he has studied evolution, knows a lot about it,
and is capable of "talking over" someone's head.

It is obviously not so, to anyone who actually has an interest,
let alone put in long hours' work in lab, field and lecture halls.


Easy to see as it would be to see I am cluelees if I tried to be the announcer
at football game. Or ab trying to do ballet. A man is supposed to know his limitations!

I'd be embarrassed to claim knowledge I dont have, but-

He isnt embarrassed to offer three made up and evidence free assertions
for how glaciers could survive a global flood, capping it with that it is god's
word. ( so he is incapable of being wrong?)

The current explanation is that the glaciers are stuck down.
Of course, they are not stuck. They move. If some part does temporarily freeze tight to
the bedrock, millions of tons pressure soon breaks it free.

I calculated the buoyant force per square ft if five miles of ice
went underwater. Anyone can do it. I forget what it was, but it
looked like about enough to pull a battleship in half. Ice dont freeze that tight to
rock. And of course, some ride on a cushion of liquid water. None are frozen down,
the point is moot.

But nope, ol'ab says he explained how ice could survive a flood.
(NEVER let no stinkin' facts mess with a good superstition)

I liked jac's idea that he doesnt get to talk about, aka mantra-chant,
about evolution till he admits he has no -zero- explanation for why polar ice does not
disprove his "flood"

I doubt it is possible, he has so much invested (see "sunk cost fallacy")
in gappitism, it might send him into a tailspin to accept that he is so mixed up,

But I guess his thinking is at least sincerely deranged; that is something.

It would be nice tho to see him on the road to rationality tho.