Evidence for God from Science

Looking at the beauty and intricacies of God's creation is a natural and noble thing to do. It is wise to study the natural laws and understand what God has wrought. Look deeply into cells and understand how the complex mechanisms interact and explore the stars and understand how elements are forged.

And we should use this knowledge to help others. Find cures for diseases, feed people, correct the ills of life, ease suffering. We are given providence over creation for a purpose and so we should be about the purpose as good stewards.

On the otherhand, we will never figure out by scientific means how God fashioned this existence. He has denied us the ablility to see it or comprehend it lest we in our arrogance attempt to be like Him. It is in the providence of God alone. God did not use natural means to create the universe as natural law did not exist until there was a universe.

(Some random thoughts before church.)

While I agree with all of the points, I think to apply them to ALL of the measurements for the age of the universe when they ALL agree an old age is inappropriate and over-generalizing to an amazing degree.

YOu must then say that ALL of the experiments are incorrectly conceived (deceived from the experimental design) , you must say that all of the measrurements are incorrect (and incorrect and yet provide the same results), you must say ALL scientists are equally biased and seeking a result from the get-go.

Considering that there are Christian scientists who have been faithful in their work who also seek wisdom from God have found similar results, I find this a stunningly broad application of scripture. Are they all decieved? Are they all in need of repentance? Are they all doubtful of God's word?

If we are so prone to deception, why trust anything at all? How can we trust our senses? our judgment? Why bother with testing medicine at all? Why bother experimenting? After all, we cannot trust ourselves with basic judgement?

I would like to recant my statements about deception insofar as they are applied to scientific research. My approach to the topic has been haphazard as I have been more focused on other threads and I confess to some sloppiness in my rationale. I would like to formulate my point of view a little more thoroughly about this and so, will post further on this topic soon.

Begging pardons,
FM

not a problem

thanks for thinking about it

Forum Monk wrote:Forget the evidence of C14. It is soon to be abandoned even by secular science.

Forum Monk wrote:I think C14 dating is reliable to about 10,000 years. Assuming the specimen is sufficienty free from contamination.

I'm confused. If you accept C-14 dating to some extent, why did you post all these links arguing against its reliability over a time frame in which you think it works?

Forum Monk wrote:I would like to recant my statements about deception insofar as they are applied to scientific research. My approach to the topic has been haphazard as I have been more focused on other threads and I confess to some sloppiness in my rationale. I would like to formulate my point of view a little more thoroughly about this and so, will post further on this topic soon.

Begging pardons,
FM

Forum Monk,

It takes a big person to make a statement like that. I know it doesn't necessarily mean you'll change your opinion, but to recognize and make a statement like that, to me it gives me a sense that you're sincerely working throught this and I respect that.

Blessings,

Bart

sandy_mcd wrote:I'm confused. If you accept C-14 dating to some extent, why did you post all these links arguing against its reliability over a time frame in which you think it works?

I still believe C14 will be discarded except when quick ball-park datings will be requested. (C14 is more economical than other radiometric methods.) The links refute the idea that C14 is the definitive word in dating and sufficient to refute the common misconception that dates are accurate even to 40,000bp. One must consider other archaeological context when checking a C14 date because the method is sensitive to contamination which may have happened at anytime during the centuries that the speciman was in situ. This is beyond the control of the person who recovered the artifact and often unknown what may have affected the results.

As for my personal belief, for now, based on my understanding of the methods and consulting with experts, I think 10,000bp is a reasonable accuracy limit provided, as I said before, the specimen is recovered from a "readable" context, proper calibration is applied and the specimen is free from contamination (for example not recovered from a dry lake bed). I don't think animal bones and the like are accurataly dated but certain kinds of pottery, dry wood, cloths, etc. can be dated.

Forum Monk wrote: As for my personal belief, for now, based on my understanding of the methods and consulting with experts, I think 10,000bp is a reasonable accuracy limit provided, as I said before, the specimen is recovered from a "readable" context, proper calibration is applied and the specimen is free from contamination (for example not recovered from a dry lake bed). I don't think animal bones and the like are accurataly dated but certain kinds of pottery, dry wood, cloths, etc. can be dated.

I agree with you, FM. i also believe it is accurate for some things but not for all. the older it gets, the less it is.
I also read yesterday that Miller did an experiment, and that when methane, ammonia, hydrogen and nitrogen were mixed and electric discharge over them, amino acids were formed. well this led me to think that would be an interesting creation or evolution (chemical this time) topic or so. jus metnioning it here koz it is wiht evolution and so, and then i had an idea - better said a question... how God could have created it. BTW, how do creationists imagine that god created it? By controlling and leaading the "random" processes to happen as He wished, or things just "appeared"? i was wondering, and came up to think that although I believe God created it, it wasnt that there was Earth, and all of a sudden, an elephant appeared, a dinosaur there, a tree there all of a sudden. I came to think that even if God created it, there were some "natural laws" and God led and made it happen so that life was possible here and so on. OK, "random" by controlling it. and that logic was still happening, and that God created without going against thermodynamics - so that if for example, someone was watching all the creation to take place, and didnt see God, one would see a logical process, not just ranodm appearance here and there. And that when Jesus, for example, did miracles, He did go agaisnt natural laws, e.g. wiht the bread or fish, walking on sea or so...

Also, this gave me an insight about free will - that free will is possible koz of this "randomness" and some gaps in it, and that is how God is able to interact - had it been all non-random, all 100% predestined, no free will would be possible.

Also, before that i came up with the thing that mathematical laws and all that are always applicable and would still exist where there were no God - e.g. that they are universal and absolute and applicable whereever, in any universe, in any conditions etc - eg that what is possible is possible and what isnt is not. So that God cannot go against them because it would go agaoinst logic. If that is true, then natural laws dont seem to be absolute and universal do they...??

may sound crazy, but... thats what i came up with and am just summing up some ideas i got...
Any thoughts?

1. to state the obvious, the Bible does not use or refer to the evolutionary process. all references are point to God as creator and a six day creation.
*******

I've never seen the Bible reference in a peer reviewed scientific journal. I wonder why.

*******

2. there are no ancient records, myths, stories or scientific studies which refer or mention the process we now know as evolution. all records talk of creation, nothing else. thus evolution has no historical foundation.

*******

The same can be said about calculus.


******

3. the fossil record can only reveal that a species lived at a certain point in time. it cannot reveal or prove the process of evolution nor can it show which is or isn't the mother/daughter species. conjecture is needed to fill in the blanks to make the process seem real.

******

The fossil record shows trends of how species change over time; looking one way at one point in time, then slightly different, then slightly different, etc. We know that this happens through artificial selection. Humans have been breading dogs and cattle in the manner for years. The term "natural" was used by Darwin to differentiate it from this process. The fossil record merely gives supporting evidence to show that, perhaps, the same process that we know we can force through breeding may have also occured through environmental pressures and random mutations.

*******

3. the dating systems are not reliable. in my work and studies i have found that these systems are very subjective, prone to corruption {way to easily}, manipulable{sp} and unverifiable. the half-life for almost all of them are too long to prove true or even accurate. at best, c-14 if limited to 11,000 +/- has a chance but its assumptions leave it too vulnerable.

*******

What is the error when represented as a percentage?

*******

4. the time frame for evolution to work is a very exaggerated figure and unprovable. it is too convenient and allows ecolutionists an ecuse for violating the very scientific principles they love to force creationists to adhere.

*******

From what I've read the time frame is consistent with other fields of science. I'm not sure what scientific principles you think they are violating.

*********

5. as stated in the last point, evolution and the theory violate the the two main principles of science. there has been no real observation of species changing or for it is impossible due to the manner in which this theory is structured.

********

If you are insinuating that we haven't observed dinosaurs actually change, then yes, you are correct. However, this does not disprove the theory....only that we are less certain of it than we are, say, a process that we can observe happen.


"has been no real observation "

Is it safe to assume you don't hold the existence of God to this same standard?


********
6. elements of life today, why would evolution need death, since there is nothing waiting for anyone when they die, death is a useless function. why would evolution conceive of such an act? also, with its ability to evolve speices, why would evolution need a reproduction system which sets its species free from its control? there is no need for any species to be able to reproduce for the process should continue replicating them at will. there is no reason nor logic as to why evolution would change its process mid-stream?

********

You are arguing as if "evolution" was a process controlled by a sentient being (perhaps an intelligent deigner). Last I checked, the Bible gives no reason for the death of all those souless animals that have nothing waiting for them when they die.

Mutations lead to change, but not necessarily an advantageos one. Advantageous changes lead to improving the species, though they can be combined with a disadvantageous change.

Sicle cell anemia is but one example of a change that leads to an advantage (resistance to malaria) coupled with a disadvantage (propenisty to form blood clots).

Eventual death really offers no advantage or disadvanatge that I can think of. As long as the species lives long enough to reproduce, it will likely continue to propogate....though their are some adanatages to living longer, as theorized for the surfival of Cro Magnon versus the extinction of Neanderthal.

The question isn't why should something die, but rather why shouldn't it. Death does not contradict evolution.
********

7. evolution is described as a non-thinking, non-feeling, non-knowing, non-everything process thus how could it conceive of what is the right combination of organs, blood and so on that would be needed for the species to survive?
*********

Because only right combinations can survive. There are pleanty of wrong combinations born all the time. They don't get to reproduce, thus their genetic material is not passed along. Combinations that work do reproduce, and combinations that work better push out those that don't.

********
case in point: man would not dream of flying and seek to do it if there were no birds or insects to give him the idea.
*******

Why does he breathe? Walk? Eat?
*******
evolution is void of all that we contain thus how could it evolve what it does not know? adherents ascribe God-like characteristics to what they say it does not possess, sorry but you can't have it both ways. either it is a process lacking in all we possess or it is a living being which created in its own image. one of the two.
*******

If I were to make a painting of myself, would I look like the painting, or would it look like me.

IOW, does man and evolution mimic God, or did man take what it knows about the world and invent a God that is consistent with what he understands?

******
'you do not understand evoultion'. sorry but i understand it quite well or i wouldn't be able to point out its fatal errors.
******
You don't and you haven't.

******
the last item in the case against evolution: we wouldn't be having this debate if the Bible wasn't true. no one pits evolution vs. the mormon scriptures, the popol val, the hindu scriptures, all debates focus on the Bible and there are many attempts to discredit it. if the Bible was false, it would have the same amount of attention given to those ancient works and people woul dbe researching something else.
******

In the case against the Bible: we wouldn't be having this debate if evolution wasn't true. No one pits the Bible vs. the moon being made of cheese, ghosts, goblins, all debates focus on evolution and there are many attempts to discredit it. If evolution was false, it would have the same amount of attention given to those other beliefs and people would be researching something else.

From
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/obvious.html
_____________________________

"Let me give you an example. I show you a computer and ask you to make your best choice as to how it came into being:

1.) Designed and put together by intelligent human beings.
2.) Random computer parts were put into a large box and the parts soldered randomly by spraying molten lead into the box as it was rotated. This process was continued many times until the computer happened to be produced. "
______________________________

Why is it that anti-evolutionists consistently use the strawman argument to attempt to debunk evolution? #2 does not remotely desribe the evolutionary process. The individual MUTATIONS are random, no the final product. The final product is achieved through a process of *natural selection* in which the most advantageous mutations survive and the least ones cease to exist. This is a process that has taken over many billion years.

The process of natural selection would be better described by taking a simple computer and randomly changing ONE part over the course of thousands of years until a better computer is achieved and makes the lesser ones obsolete. Then repeating this process many times over.....which, frankly, isn't to differnt from how computers have evolved to what they are today. Look at the "fossil" record and you will see a very distinct trend.......lest you want me to believe you are reading this on your TRS80 COLOR computer.

Yes, nobody disputes (or should dispute) the non-randomness of selection. But by your your statement, the origin of novel phenotypes that can be acted upon by selective pressure IS random, dependent upon meaningless mutations. That is the engine for the creativity that evolution requires.

That is the engine for the creativity that evolution requires.
________

Please clarify.

Banky,

Could you use the quote option when replying. It gets confusing trying to follow your answers. If that is too hard then please just Bold your Text.

Thanks

Banky wrote:That is the engine for the creativity that evolution requires.
________

Please clarify.

All I mean is that mutations (either gene or chromosomal) are what produce novel phenotypes that either provide a selctive advantage or disadvantage. Selection by iteslf merely acts on existing genes, mutations are required to produce new structures/processes. And these mutations are random.

To be honest, I'm not sure what statement you originally responded to and whether or not you agree or disagree.

Can you again clarify? Thanks.