Evidence for God from Science

Can I ask a quick question? Sorry if it`s obvious but I`m missing it.

Theistic evolution is the belief that we evolved from God`s creation? As in God created the blueprint?

Naturalistic is that we evolved from a simple organism over time and not God?

Sorry if these are dumb questions but as I say, I`m new to all this.

Storyteller wrote:Can I ask a quick question? Sorry if it`s obvious but I`m missing it.

Theistic evolution is the belief that we evolved from God`s creation? As in God created the blueprint?

Naturalistic is that we evolved from a simple organism over time and not God?

Sorry if these are dumb questions but as I say, I`m new to all this.

Not dumb questions at all. I'd expect people to have their own nuances perhaps, but as I understand them:

Theistic Evolution is generally the belief that God initially seeded the first life, and then set everything in motion for life as we see it to naturally evolve.

Naturalistic Evolution is the belief that God/supernatural beings don't exist, and as such, all the diversity of life as we see just naturally unfolded without any initial setting up, intelligent planning or guidance.

I mentioned in another thread the importance of understanding that a natural evolution is not Naturalistic evolution.
"Natural evolution" is philosophically neutral on the question of God's existence --
e.g., God planting the initial seed that naturally evolved OR life as we have it naturally evolved in more random fashion.

Many thanks K!

I am reading through all the topics on this forum and it`s absolutely fascinating, to be honest.

How does Adam fit in to TE then?

I have no problem with God creating life and it evolving because He set it into motion but I can`t factor in Adam. Where does he fit into evolution? Or doesn`t he?

Storyteller wrote:Many thanks K!

I am reading through all the topics on this forum and it`s absolutely fascinating, to be honest.

How does Adam fit in to TE then?

I have no problem with God creating life and it evolving because He set it into motion but I can`t factor in Adam. Where does he fit into evolution? Or doesn`t he?

From what I've read about TEs and Adam, beliefs vary quite a bit. Almost exclusively, YECs and OEC/Progressive Creationists believe Adam was literally, and historically the first modern human.

But I've seen TEs with beliefs that range from Adam being an evolved human not physically different than any other human, but the first human that was given a spirit by God. To TEs that believe the story of Adam is just a story, and Adam wasn't a real person. He was just a representative of humanity.

If you're interested, here's some articles at biologos:
http://biologos.org/search?s=Adam

I hope that helps.

Thanks Rick

Yes, it helps, although there is a lot there to read and digest so this may take a while

The important thing for me is that I believe in God and I accept Jesus as my Saviour, everything else is just details and there are so many! I think it`s a good job I have my lifetime to explore all this, it might just take that long!

some peoples god may not be able to created the universe in 6 day but my God can't and did. Just because we can't do something doesn't mean God can't and if he told us it was 6 days than it really doesn't mater how long we think it had to be. God can do any thing and that includes creating earth in 6 day like he said he did. God said he created all the animals and saw that it was good. When he said it was good that was the end of creating the animals just like every thing else he created he ended creating them when he saw that they were good. Then he said lets make men in our image then he created man. When he said lets make men in our image that was not him making them then that was a conversation that took place with God the Father God the Son and God the Holy Ghost about making man. Then when he created man the bible says he created man in his own image. Someone asked were did Cain get his wife if Adam and Eve were the only humans. well if you read your bible you will see that God told Adam and Eve to reproduce before they were sent out of the garden of Eden. The punishment was with out going deep into it was to make it harder to have a kid.

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:Audie,here is your chance to back that up with scientific evidence.This thread is directed at theistic evolutionists but if you believe life evolves too you can back it up with scientific evidence.I encourage it because this thread is for those who believe it and the evidence for it. Evidence can change my mind about evolution and I reject it because of a lack of evidence,I know it probably seems like a lot of evidence to you and there is a lot to wade through but I've waded through it and despite what seems like a lot of evidence,it really isn't. It is just a bunch of so-called evidence piled up on top of the belief by faith and assumptions that life evolves.Perhaps you don't want to take the time to post a bunch of evidence so focus on the strongest evidence you know of that convinces you life evolves.I want to be corrected if I've over looked something.

Hi ACB, just wondering...

To be fair, what kind of scientific evidence would prove to you that life evolved?
Can you provide an example of evidence that would be satisfactory to you.

Just, I often feel both sides talk past each other as they're thinking two different things.
To say there is no evidence for evolution I think is a bit of an oversimplification.

For example, we see viruses develop resistances to antibiotics... we see insects develop resistances to pesticides.
Those who hold to a global flood scenario, also believe in a really rapid evolution from two animals "after their kind".

So really, everyone accepts "evolution" per se, and as such, there is acceptance to some degree for "evolution".
BUT, obviously you mean something more... right?

I think ACB would require actually seeing the process of a creature turning into another creature take place before his very eyes. Obviously this is impossible as it takes millions of years for that to happen and requires millions of generations. The burden of proof is way too high for a historical science, it's like saying I don't believe there was a Roman Empire because I wasn't there to see it.

Evolution teaches that dinosaurs evolved into birds.What is wrong? You mean I must believe what you say in that peer reviewed paper?There is no demonstration it can happen?

Why should I believe you over believing that dinosaurs lived in the former world and perished when the former world perished just like all of the other life we find that is extinct,they simply died when the former world perished and your looking at the forensic evidence for a perished former world and all of the life that died until God created this world and the life we have in this world? I actually have evidence a former world full of life existed that perished. My belief that a former world perished from reading the bible is more credible with fossil evidence of the life that existed in the former world that perished.The lost world that was on this earth and it was lost because of evolution.

See I told you K.........................................

Burden of proof is way too high.

Belief in evolution is just that belief not fact there is no fact that animals come from other animals just speculation.

jpbg33 wrote:Belief in evolution is just that belief not fact there is no fact that animals come from other animals just speculation.

But it is the best theory we currently have that fits all the data, if you got a better one, go get it peer reviewed.

it is not the best theory it is completely fact less. full of unfounded assumptions that were setup to prove there is no God. I can come up with a lot of assumptions that are not real and say that is the best theory as well. But the real and best account of how we came to be is in the bible.

jpbg33 wrote:it is not the best theory it is completely fact less. full of unfounded assumptions that were setup to prove there is no God. I can come up with a lot of assumptions that are not real and say that is the best theory as well. But the real and best account of how we came to be is in the bible.

TE does not contradict the Bible, so I don't see your point.

RickD wrote:

Byblos wrote:I'm wondering (too lazy to look) if there's anything on that site regarding micro vs macro evolution.

I did a search "micro vs macro", and here's what I got:
http://biologos.org/search?s=Micro+vs+macro

And here's what I got when I searched for "macroevolution":
http://biologos.org/search?s=macroevolution

I read through them links and I have disagreements about how they claim micro-evolution is generally accepted by creationists like Kent Hovind. But I believe that what they call micro evolution is deceptive,because all it really is is variations in reproduction with the word evolution on the end.It implies evolution when it is just variations in reproduction and this is what is accepted because it is observed reality,while life evolving isn't. So it is not right to say most accept micro evolution.

Also there evidence for macroevolution is weak and really all that was observed is what they call micro evolution,which is just variations in reproduction,notice the rats are still rats,etc and they have not evolved like a dinosaur evolving into a bird.

Also it is wrong to say that those who want to see evidence for macroevolution expect to see a dog produce a cat,etc no we expect evidence that shows dinosaurs could\can evolve into birds which is said happened in peer reviewed scientific papers most anybody can read online.

Storyteller wrote:Many thanks K!

I am reading through all the topics on this forum and it`s absolutely fascinating, to be honest.

How does Adam fit in to TE then?

I have no problem with God creating life and it evolving because He set it into motion but I can`t factor in Adam. Where does he fit into evolution? Or doesn`t he?

I do not believe in Theistic Evolution, so these questions are kind of irrelevant for me to answer.
However, there are different views on Adam -- whether he was a real individual or represents a group of people.
Some say God planted the imago Dei (Image of God) once hominids evolved enough or the like.
So they modern humans might be anatomically similar to other homo sapiens, but what makes us human (enhanced morally, spiritually, creatively, etc) is that we possess the Image of God.

For myself though, I am more inline with Progressive Creation.
This seems to fit the facts and data that I see about the world, as well as in Scripture
-- once you silence out all the voices giving their opinions.

Good luck in your investigations! Be sure to let us know once you figure where you feel most comfortable.

Thanks K for that link.

Progressive Creation looks pretty much how I`ve always kind of thought. I won`t say that it will be my school of thought, not yet, as I think there is more research I need to do. I don`t feel I can decide without looking at as many ideas as possible but it looks pretty good so far.

Audie wrote:

Byblos wrote:I'm wondering (too lazy to look) if there's anything on that site regarding micro vs macro evolution.

There is nothing to micro vs macro tho some imagine otherwise.

In general, maybe (although that's also debatable). But I was asking specifically from the Biologos website considering the founder of the site is none other than Dr. Francis Collins, former head of the human gemone project that completely mapped out human DNA and current director of the National Institutes of Health. He is also the author of The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief. I was just wondering if he (or his site) had anything to say regarding any differentiation between micro and macro evolution.

I know, I know, in the time I typed all of this I could've gone and checked but ... whatever.