Evidence for God from Science

Hey guys, I am really starting to love this forum. You have no idea how much it has helped my faith. I'll keep you up to date on my love interests too, if you've read my other posts!

Anyway, should all take a look at the wikipedia article on evolution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution# ... _evolution

What do you think of their evidences in favor of evolution occurring? I am still skeptical although they treat this macroevolution as if it were a sure thing.

Thanks!

you wouldn't talk about the life and death of jesus christ as if it were a theory now would you? but can you prove to other people that jesus existed? its called faith, no matter what you have faith in. christians have faith in god, scientists have faith in other scientists and their perception.

the unsaid thing conveyed in conversation is that most of what we believe is taken for granted. people don't often like to use a lot of time or words to say something so idioms and metaphors and [understood] assumptions are used.

Actually theres alot of historical evidence Jesus existed.

I am really starting to love this forum. You have no idea how much it has helped my faith.

Now, thats what we be talkin bout! I'm glad to hear it!

Sum reeson da spelchecker wants to highlite all ma werdz

IRQ Conflict wrote:

I am really starting to love this forum. You have no idea how much it has helped my faith.

Now, thats what we be talkin bout! I'm glad to hear it!

Sum reeson da spelchecker wants to highlite all ma werdz

=)

.nekorb si rekehc lleps ym, kniht I
)=

Jay_7 wrote:Actually theres alot of historical evidence Jesus existed.

i wasn't discrediting that; there's a lot of evidence that evolution occured too.

Would anyone like to comment on my actual question?

krynn9000 wrote:Would anyone like to comment on my actual question?

Sure do you have any specific questions regarding the empirical evidence for evolution?

Ask me via PM as this board is not intended to discuss the merits of evolution. The board is here to harmonize science with christianity.

You can also speak with Kurieuo or August on this matter.

Zenith wrote:

Jay_7 wrote:Actually theres alot of historical evidence Jesus existed.

i wasn't discrediting that; there's a lot of evidence that evolution occured too.

The difference is that it is difficult to nearly impossible to conduct experients related to a specific event or individual.

Glad you're still around Zenith, I was thinking that KMart frustrated you into leaving.

lol

Ask me via PM as this board is not intended to discuss the merits of evolution.

Were not allowed to discus positive evidence of evolution here? Hmm, I'd love some info bgood. I don't believe evolution as such but would love to know what evolutionists or science believes is the strongest case they have and in what discipline.

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

Zenith wrote:

Jay_7 wrote:Actually theres alot of historical evidence Jesus existed.

i wasn't discrediting that; there's a lot of evidence that evolution occured too.

The difference is that it is difficult to nearly impossible to conduct experients related to a specific event or individual.

Glad you're still around Zenith, I was thinking that KMart frustrated you into leaving.

lol

heh, almost. i've been taking more time lately to work on school.

and yeah, there are some major differences between the evidence for the two.

IRQ Conflict wrote:

Ask me via PM as this board is not intended to discuss the merits of evolution.

Were not allowed to discus positive evidence of evolution here? Hmm, I'd love some info bgood. I don't believe evolution as such but would love to know what evolutionists or science believes is the strongest case they have and in what discipline.

i would wager genetics as being the strongest case for evolution, but you really can't look at it through one discipline. genetics shows that each individual has different genes from the next, and that an individual's genes are simply recombinations of the parents' genes with a few possible errors resulting in what we call mutation. this much is proven to be true. what is theory is that over time, these small changes add up, creating variety and speciation. for this not to happen, there would have to be something that limits the amount of change in dna such that genes cannot change in a way that seperates them from the species.

IRQ Conflict wrote:

Ask me via PM as this board is not intended to discuss the merits of evolution.

Were not allowed to discus positive evidence of evolution here? Hmm, I'd love some info bgood. I don't believe evolution as such but would love to know what evolutionists or science believes is the strongest case they have and in what discipline.

I never said we were not allowed to discuss it.

What I did mean is that I am not here to espouse the theory. I am only here to clear up any misconceptions and confusion regarding science in general.

What one chooses to believe is up to the individual.

Regarding the PM, it is a much better format for discussing specific issues, as in the forums a discussion tends to get muddled up with general attacks on evolution and unecessary cluter in the form of additional misconceptions, misrepresentations, and misunderstandings.

BeGood,

Historians have a whole slew of criteria they use to judge the historical accuracy of a book or story. They look at all kinds of things. They look at other historical references from the same time period and the numbers of things other records verify or bring into question. If 99.99% of the things mentioned in other references verify what a book says, that book would be more credible than if only 10% of the same events in other reference materials gave a similar account. They look at the amount of time between an event occurring (or person living) and the time the record of that person was written down. The idea here I guess is that the closer to an actual event a record is written, the easier it is to verify that record based on surviving witnesses and whatever actual evidence may be on hand. Things like that. Fasciniting stuff - though not the kind of research I'd like to do myself.

Wall-dog wrote:BeGood,

Historians have a whole slew of criteria they use to judge the historical accuracy of a book or story. They look at all kinds of things. They look at other historical references from the same time period and the numbers of things other records verify or bring into question. If 99.99% of the things mentioned in other references verify what a book says, that book would be more credible than if only 10% of the same events in other reference materials gave a similar account. They look at the amount of time between an event occurring (or person living) and the time the record of that person was written down. The idea here I guess is that the closer to an actual event a record is written, the easier it is to verify that record based on surviving witnesses and whatever actual evidence may be on hand. Things like that. Fasciniting stuff - though not the kind of research I'd like to do myself.

Yes the available evidence for historians is far more explicit than it is for natural sciences.

However the evidence available for historians is to some extent also more subjective. For example historical documents in the form of accounts of past societies in later societies, and documents from the society in question themselves.

Events are more difficult to pin down and verify.
Due to the inexact nature of historical studies, we have learned that we cannot discount anything.

Historians can use archaelogy and forensic sciences to validify a claim as well as cross referencing sources.

However scientific testing is in large part unavailable to them. Archaelogy is able to do limited testing on the various atrifacts related to a case. But most of the analysis is done by comparative and statistical studies of the various finds.