Evidence for God from Science

I would just like to ask one question regarding evolution.

What defines needing more complexity than the other?

Such as for example the human eye and the heart OR the human brain and the human liver etc...


Want to add on a little to this. What defines defining function and what doesn't. What part of evolution decides what function needs to arise in terms of complexity? Shouldn't any part of the body be just as complex as the eye? ... since it evolved during the exact same time frame? Why does the eye need to be more complex? You get the idea

godslanguage wrote:What defines needing more complexity than the other?

Such as for example the human eye and the heart OR the human brain and the human liver etc...


Want to add on a little to this. What defines defining function and what doesn't. What part of evolution decides what function needs to arise in terms of complexity? Shouldn't any part of the body be just as complex as the eye? ... since it evolved during the exact same time frame? Why does the eye need to be more complex? You get the idea

Hmm good question. But where does it specifically say that evolution always made things more complex? Was Adam or Eve less complex than humans nowadays? Actually yes i think coz first humans were simpler, cudnt think that well, only knew siple things such as cutting wood, stone etc and nowadyas people are xtremely complex... Well don know answer, but probably evolution (biblical) and bible go together, and God made things go as they went. But were adam and eve homo habilis? They must have been; since people after them were homo habilis; although they are still thought of as humans having today's form... Pictures of them such as paintings etc are of humans in today's form - not hairy, furry with monkey-like skull etc, but like homo sapiens sapiens.... SO dont know answer.
And probably eye needs to be more complicated because making a meaningful image of light is more complex than other things, probably. DOnt kno, good question... But were you only referring to human evolutin or other too? Because why also first there were only plants, and then animals? WHERE did they come FROM? There was - first, second, thurd, etc days of creation, and plants were created before animals, what any archeologic research says, and humans came last. So bible is right in this aspect. But about evolution i dont know. Btw does bible support ANY kind of evolution? And what makes evolution so "evil" in terms of religion? Why are religion and evolution always waging fights? Is evolution necessarily against religion and God's creation?

This is also where I see evolution having a problem with. The basis for evolution is natural selection and one of major its features random mutation. Darwinian evolution is an undirected process with no goal or purpose, the only goal is based on survival (which by the way I see as another problem, ie: evolving robots or human mind involving decision making/intuition processes and creative thinking).

Based on what I read on other creation websites (which I posted on seperate thread), it mentions the process of creation in scripture is reasonably similar and can be compared to a progressive or evolutionary process. So you can believe evolution and still believe in the root meaning of the bible and what that means to be a christian without having any confilct with the theory of evolution.

Personally, I want to see where this leads too, I don't think evolution is a real big issue and I believe the theory of evolution is a theory based on misleading conclusions. At this moment, I'm starting to doubt even micro-evolutionary theory. Even though there seems to be so much evidence for it based on the premise I believe that any changes can be the result of intelligent goal directed processes that can be measured and determined mathematically to precision, and which most of the ND'st and academics have no intention of doing because of the default "Evolution (natural selection) explains everything" position. Anything that can be measured needs to be precise, especially the immense biological complexity or else its taking a soft science position. Take for example a computer, everything has to be measured with precision, everything has to work synchronously (each process at a time) or else it crashes or doesn't work at all, the precision rests in mathematical area, formulas such as ohms law, capacitance, inductance, reasonance, frequency, laws of series and paralle circuits etc... which are the basis for computer engineering technology (hardware aspects).You think anything would work if you started guessing, it would either work or won't work, x or y or you have nothing in between, especially when you want to start upgrading it or even on top of that programming it. This all requires intelligent input.

Beneficial decision making processes for mutations based on random processes and natural selection? That really sounds like a guessing game to me. Are these beneficial mutations based on the external result of intelligence or external intelligent causal factors, or can they be? Is anyone going to explain this phenomena or even attempt to explain these based on the historical 4.5 billion years of evolution compared to the measly 200 years of technology. It is my belief that whoever thinks they are close to explaining it is seriously delusional, nevertheless I still respect they're effort. If it wasn't for these Darwinists such as Richard Dawkins who think they know it all, we wouldn't be having the strong influence from other competitive theories such as ID claiming irreducible complexity and specified complexity are major negative factors for the neo-evolutionary theory that it should consider.

I think the ND'st approach to evolutionary theory has been and will continue leading them to the same conclusion everytime, its a matter of soft-science vs. the hard-science approach, assumptions vs. facts, ideology vs. science.
If you base your theory and encapsulate it around "accident" and "natural selection" all your facts will inevitbly lead and be pointing to those two. Universe equals big accident and life equals big accident, therefore the conclusion is that everything must be formulated around that hypothesis.