Evidence for God from Science

Is there an argument here? It says Evolution AND Intelligent Design - should it say Evolution VS. Intelligent Design?
One is backed by science - human science - that's all we have actually.
The other is backed by human faith trying to parade as science to somehow still believe the faith.
Science says to Faith - I am bigger than you.
Faith says to Science - You obviously don't understand what you are talking about. God can do ANYTHING.
alleles - isn't that precious that the discussion goes to that!!!?
well - no, i didn't read the WHOLE thread - my brain might explode.
To try to convince people who are unconvincible is a foolish task.
Let's just go back a step.
In today's world - the Intelligent Design argument is Bryan and Darrows - who won?
The Bible - a great, great book written by obviously sage people - is still NOT a scientific explanation for anything.
Morals, maybe. The Jewish saga, yes. A scientific journal - NO!
To waste time on this argument is equal to arguing over which is better - fried fish or poached.
You take what you need and what you can live with in this world - love both.
Doesn't anyone realize that there is no definitive answer?
That to believe so strongly in any such stuff are the reasons for wars and heartache?
That when opinion and understanding of another is misunderstood it leads to contention and hatred and killing all because of an opinion?
Long ago I wrote a book report about how one tribe of American Indians believed that if you wore a white shirt a bullet could not kill you.
They were decimated of course.
It is not for me to say that ID is a white shirt. Beliefs are hard to overcome - familial concepts being the main reason.
It IS difficult to give up beliefs.
But you know - I think it must happen and will with the Internet Age.
If God IS there - it's there within the people. Cause, I guess we do need a someone outside of ourselves to feel better about ourselves and some might say to have a purpose. For otherwise there just is ourselves - and what would be the purpose in that? To procreate and die - like every other living thing on earth.
We make our selves and our thoughts so important - yet - tell me if i'm wrong - we are not.
Take care everyone.

Evolution does not and cannot precede intelligent design,if only as a contradiction of terms - evolution follows on from intelligent design via not so intelligent mutations to entropy etc - twinc

Cjgager wrote:We make our selves and our thoughts so important - yet - tell me if i'm wrong - we are not.

You're wrong. Your post is full of contradictions. Let's start sentence by sentence.

Cjgager wrote:Is there an argument here? It says Evolution AND Intelligent Design - should it say Evolution VS. Intelligent Design?
One is backed by science - human science - that's all we have actually.
The other is backed by human faith trying to parade as science to somehow still believe the faith.

That's just a catchphrase. You don't seem to be following the discussion at all.

Cjgager wrote:Science says to Faith - I am bigger than you.
Faith says to Science - You obviously don't understand what you are talking about. God can do ANYTHING.

Who are Science and Faith? I haven't heard of people with those names... but then again, I could have missed them.
Seriously, science or faith don't "say" anything. Only humans have the ability to speak. Faith is a prerequisite to anything, including science. You sit on a chair having faith that it won't get crushed by your weight and cause you to fall. You have faith that the Sun will rise tomorrow. And finally, you have faith that your cognitive faculties are giving you correct information about the world, and that your thoughts can be trusted. But you seem to claim that our thoughts are unimportant, so I hope you see the self-refuting nature of your position.

Cjgager wrote:alleles - isn't that precious that the discussion goes to that!!!?
well - no, i didn't read the WHOLE thread - my brain might explode.

Then why respond?

Cjgager wrote:The Bible - a great, great book written by obviously sage people - is still NOT a scientific explanation for anything.

Then why is it great? It's either true or not. If it's not true, then the authors weren't sage, but either deceivers or backward. On the other hand, if it's true, then we should definitely take it seriously.

Cjgager wrote:Morals, maybe. The Jewish saga, yes. A scientific journal - NO!

If there is no God, no morality exists either. Morals are in that case only fabrication, that came to be because of survival advantages. And if we're all going to die, it becomes clear that it's all completely irrelevant. Now, I understand that you aren't very comfortable with that option... But don't invoke religious terms in trying to refute a religion. That's a little hypocritical in my opinion.

Cjgager wrote:To waste time on this argument is equal to arguing over which is better - fried fish or poached.

Then why do you waste your time?

Cjgager wrote:You take what you need and what you can live with in this world - love both.
Doesn't anyone realize that there is no definitive answer?
That to believe so strongly in any such stuff are the reasons for wars and heartache?

What do you suggest? That we should be "driven and tossed by the wind" (James 1:6)? Please, tell me more about how happy and fulfilled you are. All I see in your posts is confusion.
By the way, what is "heartache"? Why does the way we live matter if we're completely irrelevant? Not to mention the fact that, under the naturalistic presuppositions, humans don't have free will, so they can't really "choose" to believe something. They're pretty much genetically and environmentally preconditioned to do so.

Cjgager wrote:That when opinion and understanding of another is misunderstood it leads to contention and hatred and killing all because of an opinion?

Instead, we should have no opinions according to you? We should be mindless consumers, doing what we're told to, right? I know what people like you want. You want to destroy every value that makes us humans what we are, stir confusion and make us vulnerable to manipulation.
Well, sorry to inform you that it just won't work.

Cjgager wrote:Long ago I wrote a book report about how one tribe of American Indians believed that if you wore a white shirt a bullet could not kill you.
They were decimated of course.

Red herring.

Cjgager wrote:It is not for me to say that ID is a white shirt. Beliefs are hard to overcome - familial concepts being the main reason.
It IS difficult to give up beliefs.
But you know - I think it must happen and will with the Internet Age.

Again, my assumptions are proven to be correct. You want Christianity to die not because you don't believe in it, but because you hate it. You're not atheist or humanist, but anti-Christian. All of you anti-Christians hope that the Internet Age will make it easier for you to brainwash and manipulate those with wavering faith, enabling you to lead this world to self-destruction. That's why you were sent here in the first place, isn't it? To stir confusion and cause doubts. In a subtle way - not aggressively as some do, but invoking some nonsensical catchphrases about "love" and avoiding confrontations. But on this forum it's just a waste of time because there are very skilled Christian apologists here who see through your deception... Even a 21-year-old like me recognized your intentions and fallacies.

If I were an administrator, which I'm not, I'd definitely ban you. Admins here are more tolerant though, so my recommendation to you would be -
Spend your precious, finite time elsewhere. Romans 1:19-23

twinc wrote:Evolution does not and cannot precede intelligent design,if only as a contradiction of terms - evolution follows on from intelligent design via not so intelligent mutations to entropy etc - twinc

LOL! exactly.

Evolutionist 'assume' random mutations to be a normal occurance within the structures of life buuuuut, very few ever question this pillar of their belief. Random mutations are not so random as they believe. A good start to understanding this is to look up mutational hot spots.
A better understanding can be gained from an analysis of what random really means. Suppose I give you a pair of normal six sided die and ask you if the numbers that turn up when you roll them are random. what would you say? yes or no?.
If you say yes then I can ask you to explain why I don't ever see numbers above a 12....
The complete truth is that intelligent design created the individual dice. ID provided the specified information to form the structure and the encoding on each of the structures faces so that the dice could be used "functionally" to provide a random number from within the intelligently conceived selection set from number 1 through number 12. This is not truly random as it is limited randomness that is controlled by intelligent design.
Life displays limited randomness in its variability, it was intelligently designed in this manner so that it would not simply go extinct at every change in environmental pressures.... forethought is a distinct mark of intelligence.
So when evolutionists wish to infer that random chance and natural selection are the engine that causes the change in alleles from generation to generation your first question should be "what causes the random mutations and what is its limitations". This is a question that they can't precisely answer... because they don't have a complete understanding of how the changes occur. Thus the assertion is not scientific, it is a belief, one of many that is foundational to their concept used to explain the origin of species.

Here are three of the biggest foundational assumtions that their beliefs are based on and I can say belief because it is not backed by empirical testable evidence which is how the scientific method operates;

1) everything can be explained by natural causes
2) random mutations occur by natural causes
3) all life has a single common ancestor

Evolutionists exemplify the same method that was used in the garden of eden to convince Eve... They mix truth with error to convince you of an ultimate concept. In this case it is the concept that species came about by natural cause alone. Thus no room for intelligence as a requirement.

Evolutionists exemplify the same method that was used in the garden of eden to convince Eve... They mix truth with error to convince you of an ultimate concept. In this case it is the concept that species came about by natural cause alone. Thus no room for intelligence as a requirement.

But, not all evolutionists believe this. Evolutionists can't be pigeon holed into one specific belief system. While I'm not one, I'm sure there are theistic evolutionists here that would disagree that species came about by natural causes, alone.

I agree with Rick...It's unfair and ignorant to lump atheism with evolution. They are often linked in political debates and such, but the Theory of Evolution does not explicitly push atheism or anything like that. If you want to make that assumption, then it is totally fair for me to call ID a new version of Christianity.

Ivellious wrote:I agree with Rick...It's unfair and ignorant to lump atheism with evolution. They are often linked in political debates and such, but the Theory of Evolution does not explicitly push atheism or anything like that. If you want to make that assumption, then it is totally fair for me to call ID a new version of Christianity.

Ivellious, please don't call ID, Christianity. Ricky no likey ID.

Evolution is change over time and the theory of evolution says that those changes can be by-products or various things such as:
Random events - meteor collision for example
Natural selection - nature favouring a trait because it allows for greater chance of survival
Survival of the fittest - influenced by both the above
That life HAS the ability to adapt to what the universe "throws at it" is, well, a thing of wonder.
There is no reason WHY life should evolve, but that it does is just another way to view the "fine tuning" of the universe for life as we know it.

RickD wrote:

Evolutionists exemplify the same method that was used in the garden of eden to convince Eve... They mix truth with error to convince you of an ultimate concept. In this case it is the concept that species came about by natural cause alone. Thus no room for intelligence as a requirement.

But, not all evolutionists believe this. Evolutionists can't be pigeon holed into one specific belief system. While I'm not one, I'm sure there are theistic evolutionists here that would disagree that species came about by natural causes, alone.

since there was no millions of years of Origins evolution but only very good[complete]instant creation means no theistic evolution - twinc

twinc wrote:

RickD wrote:

Evolutionists exemplify the same method that was used in the garden of eden to convince Eve... They mix truth with error to convince you of an ultimate concept. In this case it is the concept that species came about by natural cause alone. Thus no room for intelligence as a requirement.

But, not all evolutionists believe this. Evolutionists can't be pigeon holed into one specific belief system. While I'm not one, I'm sure there are theistic evolutionists here that would disagree that species came about by natural causes, alone.

since there was no millions of years of Origins evolution but only very good[complete]instant creation means no theistic evolution - twinc

Twinc, it's contradictory to believe in a six 24 hour days of creation, and also believe in an instant creation. Instant creation, six 24 hour days of creation, millions of years of creation, are all the same to an eternal God, who is outside of, and not limited to time, which He created.

And twinc, you aren't listening. The bible does not say that the Genesis days are six 24 hour days. Please read this article, and if you have specific questions, we can address them. If you're just going to spout off "but only very good[complete]instant creation" without discussing it, it does nobody any good, and goes against the board guidelines. So, take a look at this, and let us know what you think. Unless you are afraid of the truth. I tell you what, you can even pray for the Lord's guidance before you read it. You have nothing to lose.
http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/genesis.html

KBCid wrote: Evolutionists exemplify the same method that was used in the garden of eden to convince Eve... They mix truth with error to convince you of an ultimate concept. In this case it is the concept that species came about by natural cause alone. Thus no room for intelligence as a requirement.

RickD wrote:But, not all evolutionists believe this. Evolutionists can't be pigeon holed into one specific belief system. While I'm not one, I'm sure there are theistic evolutionists here that would disagree that species came about by natural causes, alone.

Theistic evolution is not what is taught to our children in school. Such a point of view arises from outside the accepted paradigm that current science proposes. So even though I recognise that there are a variety of viewpoints that splinter off from the accepted paradigm my position is specifically against the one accepted paradigm that is being pushed.
Random mutation and natural selection are not the ultimate cause of the variation we observe. God intelligently designed every form to work the way it does.

RickD wrote:Ricky no likey ID.

Well that is a bit depressing to read...
If it were not for my beginnings with ID I may not have realised the truth about God. I also wonder how such a position is possible since God is 'the intelligent designer' who gives us the intelligence to understand his creation.

Ivellious wrote:I agree with Rick...It's unfair and ignorant to lump atheism with evolution. They are often linked in political debates and such, but the Theory of Evolution does not explicitly push atheism or anything like that. If you want to make that assumption, then it is totally fair for me to call ID a new version of Christianity.

lol.

By chance did you read my post which RickD replied too? Maybe you could give it a run through and copy out the spot where I mention atheism and post it in your next reply.

Theistic evolution is not what is taught to our children in school. Such a point of view arises from outside the accepted paradigm that current science proposes. So even though I recognise that there are a variety of viewpoints that splinter off from the accepted paradigm my position is specifically against the one accepted paradigm that is being pushed.
Random mutation and natural selection are not the ultimate cause of the variation we observe. God intelligently designed every form to work the way it does.

KBC, the problem is that there is so much confusion around the term "evolution". We've had discussions here that one person was talking about one kind of evolution, and another person had a different kind of evolution in mind. It can turn into a fruitless argument where people talk over each other, because of the different kinds of evolution. While I dont believe in theistic evolution myself, I don't see a conflict between TE, and being a Christian. So, I just want to point out there is a difference between TE, and DE.

While I say I don't like ID, it's because it's too vague. The designer of ID could be God, or an alien. As a system, ID just leaves too much open to interpretation, when there are better worldviews out there, IMO.

By chance did you read my post which RickD replied too?

Of course I did. You never explicitly mention atheism, but you absolutely lump "evolution" with "no God" the way you go about it. Clearly you reject evolution because you believe it explains something without explicitly or implicitly mentioning God.

Evolutionist 'assume' random mutations to be a normal occurance within the structures of life

Yes, random mutations do in fact happen. It is normal, both within a life form's lifespan and in the process of reproduction. Are you seriously implying that mutations are a lie?

Random mutations are not so random as they believe. A good start to understanding this is to look up mutational hot spots.

Care to explain this? At all? I agree, certain types of genes and certain areas that replicate more often are more likely to undergo mutations. What does that prove? The definition of 'random" in this case is "unpredictable." Sure, I can say it is more likely for a mutation to occur certain places, or I can say that I know mutations will occur (because they do), but I can't predict what that mutation will be, when it will happen, how severe it will be, what effect it will have, whether it will be passed on to offspring, etc., until after the fact. That is why they are "random mutations."

A better understanding can be gained from an analysis of what random really means. Suppose I give you a pair of normal six sided die and ask you if the numbers that turn up when you roll them are random. what would you say? yes or no?.
If you say yes then I can ask you to explain why I don't ever see numbers above a 12....

This is a bizarre analogy to me. If you personally set a limitation to a situation, then you will certainly not see results outside of that situation. What relevance does this have?

The complete truth is that intelligent design created the individual dice. ID provided the specified information to form the structure and the encoding on each of the structures faces so that the dice could be used "functionally" to provide a random number from within the intelligently conceived selection set from number 1 through number 12. This is not truly random as it is limited randomness that is controlled by intelligent design.

What are non-functional mutations, in that case? What are the limitations? How do you account for mutations that kill individuals, like cancer? What was the forethought there? What was the forethought in creating millions of creatures that simply did die out due to environmental pressures?

So when evolutionists wish to infer that random chance and natural selection are the engine that causes the change in alleles from generation to generation your first question should be "what causes the random mutations and what is its limitations". This is a question that they can't precisely answer... because they don't have a complete understanding of how the changes occur. Thus the assertion is not scientific, it is a belief, one of many that is foundational to their concept used to explain the origin of species.

I'm gonna call BS on this. What causes mutations to occur? Errors in translating and transcribing DNA and RNA during cell processes, including cell division. Much like if you were asked to copy a few million type strokes in a row without a "delete" button, you would make mistakes. The proteins responsible for copying your cell's "data" make mistakes.

The limitations? On a technical level, there are no limitations. On a practical level, extreme mutations are rare, and often are not useful for improving reproductive/survival rates. Also, most of the time mutations are minor and not noticeable. In fact, your body right now probably has thousands of mutations within it. You just don't notice it because they are likely in individual cells.

So, I answered your questions scientifically. Any questions?

Here are three of the biggest foundational assumtions that their beliefs are based on and I can say belief because it is not backed by empirical testable evidence which is how the scientific method operates;

1) everything can be explained by natural causes
2) random mutations occur by natural causes
3) all life has a single common ancestor

1) Not true. We don't have all the answers through science. The more accurate "assumption" is that the Theory of Evolution is derived by what we see in the natural world.
2) And you have no reason to say they don't, and as far as I can tell, the cell and it's parts are very much natural parts of life as we know it.
3) This isn't an assumption, it is a conclusion drawn from the Theory of Evolution. The single common ancestor concept is drawn from the concepts of genetics and evolution, not the other way around.

RickD wrote: KBC, the problem is that there is so much confusion around the term "evolution". We've had discussions here that one person was talking about one kind of evolution, and another person had a different kind of evolution in mind. It can turn into a fruitless argument where people talk over each other, because of the different kinds of evolution. While I dont believe in theistic evolution myself, I don't see a conflict between TE, and being a Christian. So, I just want to point out there is a difference between TE, and DE.

Hopefully I have clarified my stance and the specific target of that stance so as not to offend anyone as it is not my intent to offend anyone who is on their way to finding the truth (God).

RickD wrote:While I say I don't like ID, it's because it's too vague. The designer of ID could be God, or an alien. As a system, ID just leaves too much open to interpretation, when there are better worldviews out there, IMO.

It does indeed begin vague as it does not pinpoint who they think the designer is, I would however submit to you sir that it is a gateway drug that helps to lead some otherwise lost souls (myself) to the realisation that nature is not the cause of our observable reality and leads one to look further for an ultimate truth to explain it.
Personally my studies began from an engineering point which ID is fairly strong with and this led me in to listen to their side which eventually convinced me of one truth... nature is not the cause... upon reaching that point ID leaves me to my own devices to infer what I will with the evidence provided (the part you don't like I believe). This led to my investigation of religions and their beliefs. This is where God picked me up and opened my mind to further truths... "milk" if you will. I would ask that you consider two more points sir.
1) ID is not anti-God, it is quite frankly silent as regards religion as it intends to be a part of strict scientific understanding that allows no other antagonists to form a rationale based on a religious position, even though they try .
2) Ultimately it will be God who brings whom he chooses to a proper understanding. ID can neither help to understand him nor prevent his being understood.

As for me I thank those who made the effort to bring forward understandings that helped get me on the road to forming the shadow of understanding that allowed me to be open to God when he knocked on my door. I am afraid I may never have answered it otherwise.