Evidence for God from Science

Finally, one of the populations evolved, and gained this ability.

The term species, how it is defined, and what it defines is a tough one. Even those within science don't all agree. For example we know that 'speciation' (We'll go with the popular definition) can occur within fruit fly populations. But, whether speciation has occured or not they are all still fruit flies. Speciation is a flat line.

So, the defining of macroevolution as change above the species level is begging the question. Just because the fallacy is committed by many doesn't make it any less of one. Speciation defined this way can occur with only loss of genetic info. No one here will argue against a loss of information. Losing information will not get us from A to B. It can get us from A1 to A2.

So E coli becomes.....drum roll.......E coli. Wow!! Stop the presses.
Regarding foxes. Domesitc dogs, wolves, coyotes, dingos, etc. have 78 chromosomes. Foxes have as low as 48 and no more than 66. Evolution of De-volution?

These examples are all sacred cows for Darwinist, but can not and will not ever support molecules to man evolution. It is devolving, not evolving. Yet those who are religious about their evolution wave the banner for speciation. Now if you want to argue that you devolved from some other species, then you won't get any arguments from me. My daughter is missing both her canine teeth. Something that as actually becoming quite common in the dental world. She lost the genetic info. A change for sure. But not Darwinism.

All that said, it still doesn't deal with the issue of genetic code. Code is a language, and is immaterial . At the end of the day, DNA is a terrible inconvenience for Darwinism.
You are equating a change (evolution) to Darwinism (Evolution.)

The scientific community is wrong on occasion. That's true. But no reason to discredit it completely

Of course. But there is a difference. You see, because of your worldview, I doubt you see any difference between science and Darwinism. The scientific process can be practiced by anyone. Yet you probably see no line of division. Science is Darwinism and Darwinism is science. Of course I disagree, and I think for darn good reasons. Darwinsim is a religion, which hi-jacks science as its incorruptible, innerrant authority.

There are transitional, or intermediate fossils to be observed in every major museum of natural history, and most minor ones as well.

Umm, no. I have previously on this forum and can again, show you that wonderful world of make believe. Artists renderings, etc. A very recent case was with an alleged whale with front legs. They were making claims about it having both legs and fluke and being an example of evolution from land to water. One problem,.....no fluke. Later, other remains were found that showed it was a four legged creature with NO fluke. Yet this was little critizised in the science community. Oh well. There is no transitional creature. We have exitinct creatures lauded as transitional. No one can show this creature was this before, and then became this. Much like archeoptryx. What did it come evolve from and then evolve to? "Uhh, well, uhhh, hmmm. Well we'll just have an artist draw it up to make it look transitional." And that is literally what they did. You would think logical, objective science lovers like yourself would get upset with this chicanery.

Of course. But there is a difference. You see, because of your worldview, I doubt you see any difference between science and Darwinism. The scientific process can be practiced by anyone. Yet you probably see no line of division. Science is Darwinism and Darwinism is science. Of course I disagree, and I think for darn good reasons. Darwinsim is a religion, which hi-jacks science as its incorruptible, innerrant authority.

Indeed. I can't stand when people mix science and Darwinism, considering it to be fact, but then bash Christianity.

Well, Pierson, I am glad there's some traction between our discussion.

You state that you don't contest that all religions are true, but how do you know which one is right?

Its a good question. But by the proof. It goes further. Its not even possible that 2 religions are correct. What God is can only be exclusively true. This is proven by the logical proof. Since we have the BGV theorem to help us. We know that it MUST support a DUALISTIC model. That then makes a large deduction. Atheism, Eastern religion/philosophies, and generally anything that supports that we can ALL become our own God, or invoke some kind of magic via disabling critical cognitive faculties.

This then narrows it down to the Judeo-Christian God OR the Greek Mythology gods. However, the theorem rules out plurality by deduction

So, this leaves us with the Judeo Christian God. That narrows us down to...
Judaism
Christianity
Islam

However, from these 3, we should be skeptical. We need to all remain skeptical of counterfeit Christianity. Jehovah Witnesses, Mormonism, People's temple, etc. We need to remain skeptical of Islam because if Christianity is true in investigation, than Islam is bunk. Heck, you look in Islam and even they made a pretty bold and helpful claim FOR Christianity. They have written in their Koran that Jesus "is the spirit of God". They however make really poor attempts and dismissals to Christian theology.

So, you next say that if Religion is indeed objective than how come we ALL don't believe it like we believe math for example?

That's REALLY EASY, friend. Not only does that commit the Genetic fallacy, I will help it out further.
Its NOT at all impossible for people to be taught lies as facts. For example, if there was 2 islands of people. 1 island taught mathematics correctly to their children, the other taught incorrectly. What possibilities can there be for keeping people ignorant? Let's look at some examples.

Chinese government censors the internet for its people. Why? Politics
It was illegal to teach black slaves how to read before slavery was abolished. Why? "Asset" losses
Concentration camps were secrets held from the German population. Why? Political dissent

Do you need more examples?

Please do go look into the BGV theorem. The reason why it may be new to you is because scientist who disagree don't want to acknowledge its implications. All theories that have tried to avoid an agent now no longer can do so. Its independent of physics all the way across the board.

Hi,
I was browsing the forum and registered because your question intrigued me. You said

So, are there churches which hold of on the topics of heaven and hell (seems like a staple of the Christian religion)? I am open to suggestions. This is basically the only major topic we disagree on, and I would like to have it resolved. What are your thoughts?

You are misunderstanding the Christian faith if you think Heaven & Hell are staples of the religion. The staple of the Christian religion is the person of Jesus Christ. The commandment He insists upon us keeping is to love the Lord our God with all our heart and love our neighbours. Our faith is based on love, the love of God not judgement.

My personal thought is this: It does not matter whether you take your child to church. It would appear that you and your partner have different religious views. That in itself is a serious matter, and for the child's sake should not become an issue.

If I was an atheist I would not want my child exposed to Christ because he/she might become born again and that would bring enmity between us both. However it would save the child from eternity in Hell.

I hope you can come to a wise decision. Our children are very vulnerable and need to be taught the truth at an early age.

Grace

Children are about peer groups. There are so many nasty groups out there that you may as well surround your kid with a group that is taught that LOVE is the answer. This is no guarantee but it's a good start. Scripture says true worship is to help widows and orphans. This means love everybody. It does say keep your traditions and go to church, but this is mainly about keeping your faith alive. Just think, they may meet their future spouse there. No lying, no adultry, no gambling, balanced eating, hard working........... hey, but that could happen to anybody of any age.

jlay wrote: All that said, it still doesn't deal with the issue of genetic code. Code is a language, and is immaterial . At the end of the day, DNA is a terrible inconvenience for Darwinism.
You are equating a change (evolution) to Darwinism (Evolution.)

You are fast becoming one of my favorite people, Jlay. But sorry, right after Reactionary and Rick (unless Rick still has that horrible clown as his avatar.....*shudder*) just kidding, just kidding.

StMonicaGuideMe wrote:

jlay wrote: All that said, it still doesn't deal with the issue of genetic code. Code is a language, and is immaterial . At the end of the day, DNA is a terrible inconvenience for Darwinism.
You are equating a change (evolution) to Darwinism (Evolution.)

You are fast becoming one of my favorite people, Jlay. But sorry, right after Reactionary and Rick (unless Rick still has that horrible clown as his avatar.....*shudder*) just kidding, just kidding.

St. Monica, my new avatar has a bunch of klowns. The more, the merrier, I always say.

.............oh. Oh Lord. Help. LOL

it's incredible that he is still sticking to believing there are transitional fossils.
Not only are artist rendering that I have talked about aren't even close but the fossils themselves aren't even close. The major differences in many areas between these so called transitionals do not fit with the gradual Darwinian evolution models and Stephen Gould tried to hide this fact by saying evolution suddenly speeded up, he is compounding one Lie with an even bigger lie. The problem with animals that have been shown to go through changes even close to punctuated equilibrium is that they die. The fruit fly experiment show this.

DNA is a language and to think that a language can come about by random mutations and natural deletion is delusional at best. where are the step by step progressions that we are supposed to be able to view in the fossil records? They aren't there and the problem has become worse as more fossils are found, not better.

There are at least thousands if not more complex changes in the land to sea venture that evolutionists claim have to happen for mammals to make this venture, each a step by step gradual change that takes place, but the fossil record shows no incremental step by step changes, it is as if they just popped up allready fully formed.
David berlinski the agnostic mathematician notes 50000 changes that need to take place for a mammal to go from land dwelling to sea dwelling.

You can keep repeating over and over that there are millions of transitiionals and we will repeat the facts that they arent. There are no step by step increments, only leaps of incredible information, that Darwinian evolution can't account for.
Pierson if you want to learn more about information I would suggest you visit perry marshalls blog cosmic fingerprints.
Perry in my opinion is not a good debater but when be presents his case for DNA being a language on his blog he does it very convincingly .

Graceismine wrote:If I was an atheist I would not want my child exposed to Christ because he/she might become born again and that would bring enmity between us both.

Well said. And politely, too! I have been wanting to write the same thing but less politely...something along the lines of: ''Any atheist who would take his child to church must be a dingbat.'' but I'm glad you said it better.

FL

Thanks FL. I like your signature. For me to say I like the one at the bottom is to intimate that I don't like the one at the top which isn't true. However, I do like the one at the bottom.

Graceismine wrote:Thanks FL. I like your signature.

Atheists always advance asinine assuptions allowing agreement among absurd apprehensions.

FL

Furstentum Liechtenstein wrote:

Graceismine wrote:Thanks FL. I like your signature.

Atheists always advance asinine assuptions allowing agreement among absurd apprehensions.

FL

I'll give you straight A's for that post, FL.

I'm a little fuzzy on why an Atheist would desire advice on this subject. As an atheist you automatically commit yourself into the materialistic corner where scientist have determined 'for you' that we have no free will and that our intelligence is nothing more than the orderly interaction of chemicals.... You effectively have no control on an outcome, you and your offspring are nothing more than evolutionary steps determined by chance and natural selection. By all rights your only hope should be that the result of your genetic mix and a bit of chance allows your offspring to have higher survivabilty than those around you. Religious input experienced by your offspring will make no discernable difference in survivability as there is no definable link between philosophical input and a chemical reaction.

Now for your partner this should be a big deal because how your offspring conducts themselves in this world would have a direct effect on the perceived coming one. So if I were you I would say send the child to church and this way the wife will be happy.... and you know how nice a happy wife is.... and in the end neither your wife or child can fault you since you allowed something to happen that "you know for a fact" will make no difference at all.

Of course there is one possible drawback.... If you are wrong and there is a coming life and you pop up from death to find yourself on one side of a dividing line and your family on the other....