Evidence for God from Science

Thank you, although once again, you have more reiterated what is wrong with one hypothesis, rather than attempting to explain what is right about another, and you have given no evidence other than a very minority interpretation of the bible.

I understand that you believe that all life on earth became extinct about 12000 years ago, and was replaced by newly spontaneously created life forms such as we see in the world today. Can you confirm that that is what you believe? You see, I think there is very good evidence that that didn't happen, but I do not want to discredit a belief that you don't actually hold.

hughfarey wrote:Thank you, although once again, you have more reiterated what is wrong with one hypothesis, rather than attempting to explain what is right about another, and you have given no evidence other than a very minority interpretation of the bible.

I understand that you believe that all life on earth became extinct about 12000 years ago, and was replaced by newly spontaneously created life forms such as we see in the world today. Can you confirm that that is what you believe? You see, I think there is very good evidence that that didn't happen, but I do not want to discredit a belief that you don't actually hold.

I just briefly explained I was not trying to turn this thread into a Gap Theory thread.There are other threads on here to explain better why I reject the theory of evolution and why I accept the Gap Theory. But yes I think you've got me right there was a former world that lasted for atleast millions of years until it perished then there was a gap of time until God made this world.

Also I cannot change your mind,if you have already accepted the theory of evolution and you look at the evidence from that perspective you probably will not agree with this interpretation or the evidence. I think I would have to explain why in greater detail why I reject evolution and then you might be open to this interpretation.

Thank you. I will see if I can find some Gap Theory threads, and return to the theme of this one, which, based on the OP, seems to be about whether evolution can be compatible with the creative work of God. I think it can. It seems to me that many Christians object to evolution as much as on theological as on scientific grounds, and Bethany Sollereder was trying to establish that there should be no such objections. Does anybody disagree with her?

hughfarey wrote:Thank you. I will see if I can find some Gap Theory threads, and return to the theme of this one, which, based on the OP, seems to be about whether evolution can be compatible with the creative work of God. I think it can. It seems to me that many Christians object to evolution as much as on theological as on scientific grounds, and Bethany Sollereder was trying to establish that there should be no such objections. Does anybody disagree with her?

Thank you and welcome to the forum.I hope I was'nt rude to you or anything.I respect those that I disagree with and I've even learned things on here from people I've disagreed with because we don't disagree on everything,just certian things and there is room for differing views. Just so you know if I accepted the theory of evolution? I would be a theistic evolutionist too but I just don't accept the theory of evolution.It is more based on the evidence used that is weak than theological reasons why I reject evolution.

That's quite all right; you weren't rude at all. One of the reasons, perhaps the main reason, an evolutionist like myself joins forums like this is to explore challenges to his beliefs, and very useful it can be.

hughfarey wrote:That's quite all right; you weren't rude at all. One of the reasons, perhaps the main reason, an evolutionist like myself joins forums like this is to explore challenges to his beliefs, and very useful it can be.

I love a challenge myself. I wish there ever actually were a challenge to any aspect of
the science involved in ToE or deep time.

Have you ever heard anyone present anything is this context that was a challenge?

Alas, not yet. Evolution is a complex and highly developed theory, and it is easy to pick holes in minor details - indeed, it's what evolutionary scientists do all the time - without affecting its essential explanatory force. Sadly, believers in any alternative to evolution rarely provide any evidence for their alternative at all, restricting their efforts to picking holes in minor details of evolution (see above), quoting their own personal interpretation of the bible, or simply admitting to an irrational belief. On those rare occasions when people have been able to express a comprehensive explanation of what they believe, it normally turns out to be indistinguishable from evolution anyway, usually along the lines of: "since this or that development is extremely unlikely, but happened anyway, the truth is that it must have been impossible, and somebody nudged the reaction."

Earlier in this thread, Byblos queried a statement of mine that "Old Earth Creationists have to put themselves through all sorts of contortions to try to reconcile their beliefs both with the bible on the one hand, and with science on the other, and the effort is rarely edifying." Perhaps he would be able to provide a challenge to evolution which did not consist mainly of the arguments, or lack of them, mentioned above.

hughfarey wrote:Alas, not yet. Evolution is a complex and highly developed theory, and it is easy to pick holes in minor details - indeed, it's what evolutionary scientists do all the time - without affecting its essential explanatory force. Sadly, believers in any alternative to evolution rarely provide any evidence for their alternative at all, restricting their efforts to picking holes in minor details of evolution (see above), quoting their own personal interpretation of the bible, or simply admitting to an irrational belief. On those rare occasions when people have been able to express a comprehensive explanation of what they believe, it normally turns out to be indistinguishable from evolution anyway, usually along the lines of: "since this or that development is extremely unlikely, but happened anyway, the truth is that it must have been impossible, and somebody nudged the reaction."

Earlier in this thread, Byblos queried a statement of mine that "Old Earth Creationists have to put themselves through all sorts of contortions to try to reconcile their beliefs both with the bible on the one hand, and with science on the other, and the effort is rarely edifying." Perhaps he would be able to provide a challenge to evolution which did not consist mainly of the arguments, or lack of them, mentioned above.

There is quite a list of quasi arguments.

There is "same info, different interpretation" and its sidekicks "bias" and "paradigm".

There is "every man is a liar, I believe God".

There's also the statistical coup de jarnac, and its demented twin
the second law of thermodynamics.

There is of course the endless list of misunderstanding, misrepresenting, distorting,
and the naive acceptance of cynical creosite lies.

It must be rare indeed to encounter anyone whose rejection of ToE is not based in
a combo of religion and great ignorance.

I never ran across one, myself, who wasnt both.

An exception might be Dr. Kurt Wise, a paleontologist who csnt be called uneducated,
but, a yec. He solves the dilemma with the expedient of complete
intelkectual dishonesty. "If all the evidence in the universe turned against yec,
I'd still be a yec, as that is what bible seems to say".

Our local creationists are no doubt earnest and utterly convinced
but have not a datum point among the lot of them.

If ab or anyone else could show they can produce one, I'd be
delighted and fascinated to see it.

We've seen the moldy pratts already. The forum title does
call up the words "science" and "evidence".

Scientific evidence on this, anyone?

hughfarey wrote:Earlier in this thread, Byblos queried a statement of mine that "Old Earth Creationists have to put themselves through all sorts of contortions to try to reconcile their beliefs both with the bible on the one hand, and with science on the other, and the effort is rarely edifying." Perhaps he would be able to provide a challenge to evolution which did not consist mainly of the arguments, or lack of them, mentioned above.

I think we have a little miscommunication. I have no issue whatsoever with the ToE, in fact to a large extent I consider myself a theistic "evolutionist" (there goes that word again ).

The issue I had with your statement is that you seemed to be suggesting Old Earth Creationists are somehow anti-ToE whereas I see OEC and TE as somewhat close. Was that a wrong assumption on my part?

Ah, my mistake. There is a bewildering variety of creationists. Some Old Earth Creationists believe that "kinds" of animals were created separately, and that evolution carried on, within each kind, from those starting points. Others twist themselves into knots attempting to reconcile the rather peculiar order in which the various species are mentioned in the bible (fruit trees before fish, birds before land reptiles, and so on) with the current scientific paradigm. Others restrict the spontaneous creation of living things to the original primordial blob from which everything else evolved. I think that the term 'Creationist' does usually imply a belief in more creation ex nihilo than just the big bang, but if not, then I think many cosmologists are Old Earth Creationists too. If you would care to explain further, I would be interested to hear your own ideas in this respect.

hughfarey wrote:Ah, my mistake. There is a bewildering variety of creationists. Some Old Earth Creationists believe that "kinds" of animals were created separately, and that evolution carried on, within each kind, from those starting points. Others twist themselves into knots attempting to reconcile the rather peculiar order in which the various species are mentioned in the bible (fruit trees before fish, birds before land reptiles, and so on) with the current scientific paradigm. Others restrict the spontaneous creation of living things to the original primordial blob from which everything else evolved. I think that the term 'Creationist' does usually imply a belief in more creation ex nihilo than just the big bang, but if not, then I think many cosmologists are Old Earth Creationists too. If you would care to explain further, I would be interested to hear your own ideas in this respect.

My ( sadly) ex- father in law is Catholic, and a PhD geologist. He, like other
geologists finds creationists as defined by webster, to be an often- militantly
ignorant and tiresome bunch.

Audie wrote:

hughfarey wrote:Ah, my mistake. There is a bewildering variety of creationists. Some Old Earth Creationists believe that "kinds" of animals were created separately, and that evolution carried on, within each kind, from those starting points. Others twist themselves into knots attempting to reconcile the rather peculiar order in which the various species are mentioned in the bible (fruit trees before fish, birds before land reptiles, and so on) with the current scientific paradigm. Others restrict the spontaneous creation of living things to the original primordial blob from which everything else evolved. I think that the term 'Creationist' does usually imply a belief in more creation ex nihilo than just the big bang, but if not, then I think many cosmologists are Old Earth Creationists too. If you would care to explain further, I would be interested to hear your own ideas in this respect.

My ( sadly) ex- father in law is Catholic, and a PhD geologist. He, like other
geologists finds creationists as defined by webster, to be an often- militantly
ignorant and tiresome bunch.

Audie,

What is the definition of creationist, as defined by Webster's? I couldn't find it online.

RickD wrote:

Audie wrote:

hughfarey wrote:Ah, my mistake. There is a bewildering variety of creationists. Some Old Earth Creationists believe that "kinds" of animals were created separately, and that evolution carried on, within each kind, from those starting points. Others twist themselves into knots attempting to reconcile the rather peculiar order in which the various species are mentioned in the bible (fruit trees before fish, birds before land reptiles, and so on) with the current scientific paradigm. Others restrict the spontaneous creation of living things to the original primordial blob from which everything else evolved. I think that the term 'Creationist' does usually imply a belief in more creation ex nihilo than just the big bang, but if not, then I think many cosmologists are Old Earth Creationists too. If you would care to explain further, I would be interested to hear your own ideas in this respect.

My ( sadly) ex- father in law is Catholic, and a PhD geologist. He, like other
geologists finds creationists as defined by webster, to be an often- militantly
ignorant and tiresome bunch.

Audie,

What is the definition of creationist, as defined by Webster's? I couldn't find it online.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/creationism

I'm sorry your father found creationists to be militant and tiresome. I have not found them so myself, and wish us a fruitful and harmonious discussion.

The Oxford definition of Creationist is: A person who believes that the universe and living organisms originate from specific acts of divine creation, as in the biblical account.

Not terribly helpful in my opinion, as much depends on the precise definition, in this context, of the word Creation.

Audie wrote:

RickD wrote:

Audie wrote:

hughfarey wrote:Ah, my mistake. There is a bewildering variety of creationists. Some Old Earth Creationists believe that "kinds" of animals were created separately, and that evolution carried on, within each kind, from those starting points. Others twist themselves into knots attempting to reconcile the rather peculiar order in which the various species are mentioned in the bible (fruit trees before fish, birds before land reptiles, and so on) with the current scientific paradigm. Others restrict the spontaneous creation of living things to the original primordial blob from which everything else evolved. I think that the term 'Creationist' does usually imply a belief in more creation ex nihilo than just the big bang, but if not, then I think many cosmologists are Old Earth Creationists too. If you would care to explain further, I would be interested to hear your own ideas in this respect.

My ( sadly) ex- father in law is Catholic, and a PhD geologist. He, like other
geologists finds creationists as defined by webster, to be an often- militantly
ignorant and tiresome bunch.

Audie,

What is the definition of creationist, as defined by Webster's? I couldn't find it online.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/creationism

That's a pretty generic definition of creationism. It's really not so simple and narrow.