Evidence for God from Science

Byblos wrote:

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.

Typically macro evolution is viewed to have happened when enough steps of micro evolution have occurred so that a group from one species can no longer reproduce with the original group it was from.
They twp species may look exactly alike even, but the moment they can't reproduce other than within the same group, they are viewed as, biologically, different species.

Byblos wrote:

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.

As I understand it the micro / macro thing has been picked up to be misrepresented and exploited by certain among
the creationist movement, as a way to show that organisms can only display variations within a "kind". The evident idea
here being that there is a wall of separation between any two species, and that wall is simply the limit past which "micro"
evolution cannot go, for lo, then it would be "macro".

If someone has identified this barrier, and can tell us some things about it, then all will be seen in anew and most revealing
light.

A little "turn about is fair play" maybe in order.

A way that those who favour this or that school of creationist thought may attack ToE is the "explain this" (for which there is no data, like say precursor forms of various Cambrian orders). The follow thru is to say along the lines of gotcha, see god did it.

At the end of micro and start of macro we see it implicitly stated that there is a sharp break, a limit, a wall.
So far, line in sand, no further.

Where are the research papers on this? It is, you know Nobel with oak leaves stuff.
Where is the winner? ( waxing rhetorical, I am)


As it is such a limit is nothing more than idle and, yes, religiously motivated speculation. But as such, it deserves a hard look.

Look at how much hangs in the balance! Identify this "missing limit" and PC is in ToE is out.

I trust you see my point, that unless someone shows us the mechanism put there presumably by God, to halt the emergence and spread of genetic variation, the "micro-macro" thing is nothing but some creobs, that respectable individuals of whatever persuasion are best advised to steer clear of in any way staking their faith on its reality.

PaulSacramento wrote:

Byblos wrote:

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.

Typically macro evolution is viewed to have happened when enough steps of micro evolution have occurred so that a group from one species can no longer reproduce with the original group it was from.
They twp species may look exactly alike even, but the moment they can't reproduce other than within the same group, they are viewed as, biologically, different species.

Im curious where you got this idea?

The topic of this post says "Evidence for theistic evolution". So my point is there is on evidence any where of any evolution. So there is no evidence for theistic evolution or any evolution. Evolution looking at someone else's creation and saying it didn't happen the way they said it did. I don't know about everyone else but I will believe how God said it happened over man's reasoning any day.

jpbg33 wrote:So my point is there is on[sic] evidence any where of any evolution. So there is no evidence for theistic evolution or any evolution.

What do you mean? There's plenty of evidence. Just because there's evidence for something doesn't make the something true, though.

jpbg33 wrote:The topic of this post says "Evidence for theistic evolution". So my point is there is on evidence any where of any evolution. So there is no evidence for theistic evolution or any evolution. Evolution looking at someone else's creation and saying it didn't happen the way they said it did. I don't know about everyone else but I will believe how God said it happened over man's reasoning any day.

Two things to consider: while it may be that no evidence has been presented here, it is far from true that there is none.
Its best not to base faith on any mistaken beliefs.

Also, one may not want to be overconfident that they know for absolutely sure
that they have special access to God's word, and all that it means

Dont you think so?

Rob wrote:

jpbg33 wrote:So my point is there is on[sic] evidence any where of any evolution. So there is no evidence for theistic evolution or any evolution.

What do you mean? There's plenty of evidence. Just because there's evidence for something doesn't make the something true, though.

Of course! A year and a half into law school, and that concept is starting to finally come into focus!

It is too bad to see someone declare for their faith on the basis of rather reckless ignorance tho, as you noted. (In very different words!)

A strong, intelligent faith tolerates no falsity, and can meet any challenge head on.

Audie wrote:

Byblos wrote:

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.

As I understand it the micro / macro thing has been picked up to be misrepresented and exploited by certain among
the creationist movement, as a way to show that organisms can only display variations within a "kind". The evident idea
here being that there is a wall of separation between any two species, and that wall is simply the limit past which "micro"
evolution cannot go, for lo, then it would be "macro".

If someone has identified this barrier, and can tell us some things about it, then all will be seen in anew and most revealing
light.

A little "turn about is fair play" maybe in order.

A way that those who favour this or that school of creationist thought may attack ToE is the "explain this" (for which there is no data, like say precursor forms of various Cambrian orders). The follow thru is to say along the lines of gotcha, see god did it.

At the end of micro and start of macro we see it implicitly stated that there is a sharp break, a limit, a wall.
So far, line in sand, no further.

Where are the research papers on this? It is, you know Nobel with oak leaves stuff.
Where is the winner? ( waxing rhetorical, I am)


As it is such a limit is nothing more than idle and, yes, religiously motivated speculation. But as such, it deserves a hard look.

Look at how much hangs in the balance! Identify this "missing limit" and PC is in ToE is out.

I trust you see my point, that unless someone shows us the mechanism put there presumably by God, to halt the emergence and spread of genetic variation, the "micro-macro" thing is nothing but some creobs, that respectable individuals of whatever persuasion are best advised to steer clear of in any way staking their faith on its reality.

Well I went ahead and did what I had asked everyone to do in my stead but all were too lazy to do, i.e. looked into the biologos website for any clear distinction between micro and macro. I trust biologos because of who its founder is both scientifically and theistically (I also read his book, highly recommended).

P.S. There are several articles that mention micro vs. macro evolution (e.g. here ) and the consensus is that even if one is to entertain the idea that macro-evolution is definable, first it has been observed to an extent (read the article), and second for the most it is unobservable because of the length of time it requires.

I know there are some who will accuse ToE of science of the gaps when such is postulated for "macro" evolution but that outght not be the case. It is a theory. It's a solid theory. Yes, some parts are unobservable but can be falsified. So far they haven't been.

So byb, does this indicate that we are in broad agreement on the m/m non issue?

jpbg33 wrote:The topic of this post says "Evidence for theistic evolution". So my point is there is on evidence any where of any evolution. So there is no evidence for theistic evolution or any evolution. Evolution looking at someone else's creation and saying it didn't happen the way they said it did. I don't know about everyone else but I will believe how God said it happened over man's reasoning any day.

And there you go again, using your reasoning to interpret what God said!

There is no evidence. We do have rocks so where did they come from? glad you asked I'll explain. God made the rocks so how can you make a rock that doesn't look old a rock is a rock so the rocks that he made are going to look like rock we have today old. Not only rocks but everything that we have today. thank about it the bible says he made a chicken not an egg(it doesn't say chicken but I'm referring to adult animals) it also says he made a man not a baby so if he made everything else full grown then why not the earth. if he didn't why did he change his pattern there. He made everything fully developed and that includes the earth. Just because something looks old doesn't mean it is as old as it looks. there is no evidence of any evolution. It is beyond the shadow of a doubt that evolution is not true. I'm not interpreting I'm reading.
The bible say let all men be a liar but God be true.

jpbg33 wrote:There is no evidence.

That's simply not a true statement. You can reject the evidence or interpret it another way, but you cannot say there is none at all...

Hang on, when you say "no evidence" do you really mean "nothing that confirms that it's 100% true?" Once again, just because there's evidence for something, doesn't mean that the something is true.

If someone's missing a chocolate bar and there's chocolate on my face, that is evidence that I ate it. But it doesn't necessarily mean that I did.
Do you understand?

Audie wrote:So byb, does this indicate that we are in broad agreement on the m/m non issue?

Imagine that.

The problem with the evidence evolutionist say they have it can not be proven scientifically. so it is an assumption not evidence. I've never been to law school but I don't thank assumptions are real evidence. You don't convict people over just assumption you have to have some real evidence.

jpbg33 wrote:There is no evidence. We do have rocks so where did they come from? glad you asked I'll explain. God made the rocks so how can you make a rock that doesn't look old a rock is a rock so the rocks that he made are going to look like rock we have today old. Not only rocks but everything that we have today. thank about it the bible says he made a chicken not an egg(it doesn't say chicken but I'm referring to adult animals) it also says he made a man not a baby so if he made everything else full grown then why not the earth. if he didn't why did he change his pattern there. He made everything fully developed and that includes the earth. Just because something looks old doesn't mean it is as old as it looks. there is no evidence of any evolution. It is beyond the shadow of a doubt that evolution is not true. I'm not interpreting I'm reading.
The bible say let all men be a liar but God be true.

Just to be clear to everyone reading this, even the most ardent YECs, such as Ken Ham, don't use the "the earth looks old, but is really young" argument. It's just ridiculous.

It makes God out to be a liar and deceiver.

The earth looks old god: "Humanity, I gave you a brain so you can study creation. But when you conclude that creation is old, Aha! Joke's on you! It only looks old!"