Evidence for God from Science

I do not understand what all the commotion is about. Is there something wrong with evolution and God co-existing?

Delay wrote:I do not understand what all the commotion is about. Is there something wrong with evolution and God co-existing?

Nothing wrong with it at all... The problem seems to be with the secular (public) scientists in their interpretation of evolution.

Delay wrote:I do not understand what all the commotion is about. Is there something wrong with evolution and God co-existing?

Hey Delay. You might want to check out some pages here to get an idea of some of things that are debated regarding evolution. Like: http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/evolution.html and http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/evolprob.html, although this second one is not real up-to-date. There are many other articles up at the main site too. I hope they help.

Bgood said:

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?

Of course the point is that cars are not like evolution since in evolution you work with what you have. Cars for example, are quite open to change/s from an external source since humans invented them and can modify them at will, but again new cars are produced off a template of ones that already exist (the original "core" design remains in each primary form of the first of its kind).

Evolution as in a prescribed (such as Professor John A. Davisons PEH) or front-loaded evolution doesn't work precisely that way since you want to conserve what was given initially so that given enough time all possible inputs will be explored and the determined output/s will be revealed, output could be determined based on the width of the input (how many) and/or the type of input for a given module's subroutine/s. The idea is that there is enough control, error detection and prevention mechanisms onboard that no intervention is needed nor is it required.

So my example was to show this illusion of the automobile being comparable to Darwinian Evolution, that all in all, after looking quite random to a Darwinist when you face the fact that NS prevents and regulates change and random mutation doesn't produce functional complex specified information but instead decreases it, it becomes obvious it was quite determined after all.

godslanguage wrote:

Bgood said:

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?

Of course the point is that cars are not like evolution since in evolution you work with what you have. Cars for example, are quite open to change/s from an external source since humans invented them and can modify them at will, but again new cars are produced off a template of ones that already exist (the original "core" design remains in each primary form of the first of its kind).

The question was if we were to reset the timeline would the cars we see be the same?

godslanguage wrote:Evolution as in a prescribed (such as Professor John A. Davisons PEH) or front-loaded evolution doesn't work precisely that way since you want to conserve what was given initially so that given enough time all possible inputs will be explored and the determined output/s will be revealed, output could be determined based on the width of the input (how many) and/or the type of input for a given module's subroutine/s. The idea is that there is enough control, error detection and prevention mechanisms onboard that no intervention is needed nor is it required.

Not sure how this relates to the question above.

godslanguage wrote:So my example was to show this illusion of the automobile being comparable to Darwinian Evolution, that all in all, after looking quite random to a Darwinist when you face the fact that NS prevents and regulates change and random mutation doesn't produce functional complex specified information but instead decreases it, it becomes obvious it was quite determined after all.

On what basis can you state that "random mutation doesn't produce functional complex specified information but instead decreases it"?

Of course the point is that cars are not like evolution since in evolution you work with what you have. Cars for example, are quite open to change/s from an external source since humans invented them and can modify them at will, but again new cars are produced off a template of ones that already exist (the original "core" design remains in each primary form of the first of its kind).

Yes, this sounds a lot more like ID, which would answer the questions as to why we share so much of our DNA with creation. Same designer, same materials. No one assumes a Pinto and Mustang evolved from a common ancestor. We know they were designed and have a maker named Ford. I've never met Henry Ford, but I've seen the evidence of his creations.

Funny when you go back to the alpha point, the bible says we came from the dust of the earth and in a way, so does secular science.

On what basis can you state that "random mutation doesn't produce functional complex specified information but instead decreases it"?

You don't prove a negative. Why do so many here confuse where the burden of proof lies. If you have any evidence then please share.

You asked if the evolution of automobile was reversed and would it produce the same output if it was rerun again.

I answered indirectly, eventually the same output would be expressed given enough time, it may vary randomly with respect to time but it would eventually kick in.
When I say "would", I mean it must.

If I had to assume (given your assumption that time can be reversed), I'd probably say it would be more likely that a similar or identical pathway would be reproduced if the combustion engine already existed. Take it another way, If Bell Graham wasn't as influential with the telephone then the internet would not exist, or would take much longer time to get to that point or even passed it. I believe that what led to the industrial revolution up to this technological era is due to not advancements in mathematics, not advancements in science, etc... but enough information had been garnered about nature and how it works that it was an inevitable outcome. It'd been taken out of context of what it was and put into a different context, from information based; written on paper, thought about etc.. to physically based where that information was applied to a different, more useful context (as in, a useful context for humans). When will it get there? Who cares, but is it there? Yes it is.

On what basis can you state that "random mutation doesn't produce functional complex specified information but instead decreases it"?

On what basis could you state that it has? I see no reason to infer it since its baseless, without empirical support for it. Show us a step by step pathway leading to over 500 functional bits (one functional bit can produce one simple sub-function) of functional complex specified information I will take you seriously in that regards.

Front-loading would indeed best fit the nature of the Cambrian explosion.

If I were to make an even bigger assumption based on my previous outlook, then I'd say we are dealing with a God that laughs at time.

cfldsl.

If you are looking for scientific evidence of evolution, I am afraid you will not find any.

If you are looking for scientific evidence of Creation, I'm sorry, but you will not find that either.

Scientists cannot prove these things. They can only THEORIZE. A theory is a well though out, educated guess.

If you want to follow the Bible, then fine. Follow it. You will never prove it with science. Ever.

I don't particularly think that the theory of evolution is perfect either. Some parts make sense, others don't. Those things that are so far past are lost forever. We weren't there to observe and record.

CliffsofBurton wrote:cfldsl.

Scientists cannot prove these things. They can only THEORIZE. A theory is a well though out, educated guess.

Theories are indeed best guesses. But for it to be a best guess it requires testing. In this phase its status is of type hypothesis. After its been tested against competing hypothesis only then does it become a theory, a "best guess" as you say. Testing involves checking it against observable findings and making predictions off those findings(or data). The data generated data could be useful for application or engineering purposes.

Darwin indeed provided us with a hypothesis, but even with limited observable and predictive power at hand it quickly obtained theory status. The Darwinists "won" by ignoring all other competing hypothesis.

They are the enlightened ones, if you have seen LOTR's, the character gandalph strikes a deep resemblance, authoritative figures helping to save and protect science from religion especially but not limited to those dumb Christians.

Your wording is wrong. Let me explain.

Einstein had a theory. It was called the Theory of General Relativity. His theory, included phenomenon we know as black holes.

Lesser known parts of the theory also mention white holes and worm holes. These are two we have yet to see any supporting evidence of.

So was the black hole, until recently. But before they were actually seen doing what they do, (devouring suns, and releasing massive amounts of energy{gamma bursts, or blazars}) they existed only in THEORY.

We also, DO see evolution, or adaptation, whichever word you are more comfortable with. When a germ becomes immune to a drug, they call it a new strain. the new strain, ignores the drug and attacks its victim once again. Some say it evolved. I prefer the word adapted. Either way, this is part of how they move out of the hypothesis stage, into the realm of a theory. Of course, they call it evidence, but it really isn't.

So was the black hole, until recently. But before they were actually seen doing what they do, (devouring suns, and releasing massive amounts of energy{gamma bursts, or blazars}) they existed only in THEORY.

Theories are verified hypothesis making a theory fact based. We say "hypothetically" speaking and we say "theoretically" speaking, the latter is a fact based, the former is a fairytale based. The words theory, theoretical etc...seem to be misused and mischaracterized.

Darwinian evolution still belongs in the hypothesis state, or worse, the trashcan.

Therefore, the Bible is a hypothesis. That would make you a HypoTheist.

Now I'm having fun.

CliffsofBurton wrote:Therefore, the Bible is a hypothesis. That would make you a HypoTheist.

Now I'm having fun.

The bible is not a science textbook. And yes, "creation" is one hypothesis, not the bible itself.

CliffsofBurton wrote: Now I'm having fun.

If you want fun, go to your local playground. You want a lollipop to go?