Evidence for God from Science

In the beginning, the earth was without form, and void. There was not life; there was not death. There was not reasonable expectation of life; hence, there was not reasonable expectation of death. And it came to pass in the process of time that life was created. But there was still not reasonable expectation of death. But this miraculous creation of life came with a complete and completely functional reproductive system. Thus this living thing was born with the solution to a problem which did not yet exist; hence, such a solution could not have been formed through experience. The prior provision for a problem is called a plan. The theory of evolution utterly denies the presence of any intelligent oversight or control; thus, there could be no plan. Because two contrary propositions cannot both be true at the same time, these last three sentences form a logical contradiction; this is called a fallacy. It is left for the evolutionists to conjure yet another “scientific” explanation which invariably contains much explanation and little science.

You want a "rebuttal" of Darwinian evolution, you're gonna have to do a little better then that.

Here is your rebuttal...

Link One
Link Two
Link Three

Want more?

Don't forget Behes "Darwins Blackbox" and "The edge of evolution", Mike Genes "The Design Matrix" and one which nicely integrates all of those into one: "The Design of Life" by Jonathan Wells and William Dembski

Re: Evolution scientists...yeah, but creation scientists?
by Robert Byers on Thu Sep 04, 2008 8:10 pm

There are no evolution scientists. As the great Dr Morris said all origin subjects are not open in any important ways to the scientific method. All that researchers can do is gather data and make conclusions by the weight of evidence but no method of science.
However in the real world creationists must use the word scientists for themselves to bring understanding to the public.

I found this particularly germane quote while browsing another point. Darwinian evolution does not allow any intellectual oversight or control. Therefore any experimental or observational implementation or arrangement of components or conditions are not allowed---unless the observed phenomena are entirely natural and unperturbed. Given these restrictions, experimental evolution is futile.

Accordingly, it seems to me that the best investigation of evolution is intuitive and deductive.

Re: the links left before. All those books and all those pages do not refute Darwinian evolution any better than these hundred-fifty or so words.

Thank you.

cfldsl

Thus this living thing was born with the solution to a problem which did not yet exist; hence, such a solution could not have been formed through experience.

First, you are referring to abiogenesis, a topic that is separate from evolution proper.

Secondly, abiognesis defined does not "solve" something. According to the model, events occurred, life occurred, because those events were probable enough to occur. THis is where you must argue the point, not in philosophy.

The idea in abiogenesis is simply the accumulation of events that led to a reproducible cell with a metabolism.

The prior provision for a problem is called a plan.

No, this would not convince an evolutionsist or a naturalist. YOu are assuming that a "plan" was needed. In their model a plan was not needed, random events combined with non=random chemical reactions was enough. If you want to convince them and rebut their theory , you must rebut the events and the probability, the books that were cited before address the actual probabilities.

cfldsl wrote:

Re: Evolution scientists...yeah, but creation scientists?
by Robert Byers on Thu Sep 04, 2008 8:10 pm

There are no evolution scientists. As the great Dr Morris said all origin subjects are not open in any important ways to the scientific method. All that researchers can do is gather data and make conclusions by the weight of evidence but no method of science.
However in the real world creationists must use the word scientists for themselves to bring understanding to the public.

I found this particularly germane quote while browsing another point. Darwinian evolution does not allow any intellectual oversight or control. Therefore any experimental or observational implementation or arrangement of components or conditions are not allowed---unless the observed phenomena are entirely natural and unperturbed. Given these restrictions, experimental evolution is futile.

Accordingly, it seems to me that the best investigation of evolution is intuitive and deductive.

Re: the links left before. All those books and all those pages do not refute Darwinian evolution any better than these hundred-fifty or so words.

Thank you.

cfldsl

Right. I think.
Evolution is simply not open to the scientific method and therefore conclusions about origins must be made with other means. Data plus deduction and sheer weight of evidence etc. However the scientific method is a actual method that must be in operation to assume you are doing science. This is why evolution has been a on going error. The few people involved misundestand they are just data collecting and making conclusions and not puting it to testable vigor.
Then they use the word science to justify their conclusions and so the public is lead astray.

cfldsl wrote:But there was still not reasonable expectation of death. But this miraculous creation of life came with a complete and completely functional reproductive system. Thus this living thing was born with the solution to a problem which did not yet exist; hence, such a solution could not have been formed through experience.

zoegirl wrote: by zoegirl on Mon Oct 13, 2008 4:49 pm
Thus this living thing was born with the solution to a problem which did not yet exist; hence, such a solution could not have been formed through experience.

First, you are referring to abiogenesis, a topic that is separate from evolution proper.

zoegirl: I am sorry for not making myself more clear. The 'problem which did not yet exist;...' is death, and specifically, the death of the first living thing. [According to evolutionism:] The first living thing must have had reproducibility; its progeny provides the evidence of the existence of this faculty. Normally the evolutionist's task is to persuasively argue that this miraculous event of creation was a complete and total accident. Because this event has not yet been attended by suitable scientific verification, the event itself, and other such related theorizations, extrapolizations, and fanciful meanderings of the mind, are not science and should not be regarded as scientific or even, for that matter, decent fiction.

zoegirl wrote: by zoegirl on Mon Oct 13, 2008 4:49 pm
Secondly, abiognesis defined does not "solve" something. According to the model, events occurred, life occurred, because those events were probable enough to occur. THis is where you must argue the point, not in philosophy.

The idea in abiogenesis is simply the accumulation of events that led to a reproducible cell with a metabolism.

zoegirl: This was addressed above; additionally, creationists are not obligated to receive a theory such as abiogenesis. The evolutionist's ability to conceive it or speak it does not cause its existence, veracity, or reality. The evolutionist is the one bound by his abiogenetic model; I am bound by whatever scientific evidence is offered in support of his model.

cfldsl wrote: The prior provision for a problem is called a plan.

zoegirl wrote: by zoegirl on Mon Oct 13, 2008 4:49 pm
No, this would not convince an evolutionsist or a naturalist. YOu are assuming that a "plan" was needed. In their model a plan was not needed, random events combined with non=random chemical reactions was enough. If you want to convince them and rebut their theory , you must rebut the events and the probability, the books that were cited before address the actual probabilities.

zoegirl: On the contrary, the first living thing's reproductive capability is evidence of a plan. The evolutionist's alternative is to postulate the "accidental" creation--an event the evidence for which we await still. An accidental creation being born with an accidental ability to overcome an unforeseeable predicament is evidence of a plan because such an arrangement involves prior information. In an exchange between a creationist and an evolutionist, now would be the proper point for the creationist to say, "Your turn."

It would not seem that creationists would/should/could/must answer every/any/some theory that seeps from the pagan mind. Rather, let the abiogenesis/evolution adherants make their offer of proof [of which they have none] in support of their theory. It would seem that this is the first step when actively advocating a position.

The term or concept "non-random" is not available to evolutionists for their own use; it is completely anathema to their thinking and their cause.

Of course, belief in either creationism or evolutionism rests on faith--the acceptance, embracement, and reliance upon a doctrine [in this case] without provable elements. Adherants of the Truth do not hesitate to proclaim this faith; the other does not.

Thank you.

cfldsl

cfldsl wrote:

cfldsl wrote:But there was still not reasonable expectation of death. But this miraculous creation of life came with a complete and completely functional reproductive system. Thus this living thing was born with the solution to a problem which did not yet exist; hence, such a solution could not have been formed through experience.

zoegirl wrote: by zoegirl on Mon Oct 13, 2008 4:49 pm
Thus this living thing was born with the solution to a problem which did not yet exist; hence, such a solution could not have been formed through experience.

First, you are referring to abiogenesis, a topic that is separate from evolution proper.

zoegirl: I am sorry for not making myself more clear. The 'problem which did not yet exist;...' is death, and specifically, the death of the first living thing. [According to evolutionism:] The first living thing must have had reproducibility; its progeny provides the evidence of the existence of this faculty.

No, again, their model supposes that there WAS no plan. Molecules assembled into reproducible units (RNA, phospholipids) and enzymes assembled to create a very minor metabolic pathway. These parts assembled in such a way that they replicated and copied each other. THAT is there model. They suppose no plan, no *solution*. There was no problem to *solve*, simply random collisions that very fortunatley provided very unrandom molcules.

And of course reproduction had to be a part of abiogenesis.

My point is, you are not providing a rebuttal of the model. You are arguing a philosophical point instead of addressing the problems of abiogenesis. Address the issues of the improbability, the problems of the chemistry.

I'm not saying that philosophy is unimportant, rather that your point would not address the problems of the mechanics.

cfdsl wrote:

Normally the evolutionist's task is to persuasively argue that this miraculous event of creation was a complete and total accident. Because this event has not yet been attended by suitable scientific verification, the event itself, and other such related theorizations, extrapolizations, and fanciful meanderings of the mind, are not science

no, I would clarify this. It is good observations, unsupported extratpolations. There are interesting and intriguing chemistry that had shown some evidence for self-assembly of molecules that can then be their own template to copy themselves. Have they been able to observe the self-generation of life? No.

But here is an interesting question: Suppose tomorrow, they do, suppose in 5 years, they do. WOuld this rock your faith? Inother words, observing something happening "naturally" does not mean that God was not invovled. Nor does it mean
that God could not have orchestrated it.

We need to be very, very careful as Christians to place limitations where there should be none on our expectations and/or demands on what God did or could do.

and should not be regarded as scientific or even, for that matter, decent fiction.

Oh, it's very decent fiction and it's obviously very very seductive. However, it is grounded on good scientific observations.

cdsl wrote:

zoegirl wrote: by zoegirl on Mon Oct 13, 2008 4:49 pm
Secondly, abiognesis defined does not "solve" something. According to the model, events occurred, life occurred, because those events were probable enough to occur. THis is where you must argue the point, not in philosophy.

The idea in abiogenesis is simply the accumulation of events that led to a reproducible cell with a metabolism.

zoegirl: This was addressed above;
additionally, creationists are not obligated to receive a theory such as abiogenesis.

Of course you aren't....never said you were....my only point is that you should argue on the mechanisms. Your rebuttal would not convince somebody who had already rejected a "plan"

cdsl wrote: The evolutionist's ability to conceive it or speak it does not cause its existence, veracity, or reality. The evolutionist is the one bound by his abiogenetic model; I am bound by whatever scientific evidence is offered in support of his model.

Well, ideally, everybody is bound by the scientific evidence! And, of course, scientists DO believe that the evidence strongly supports abiogenesis.

They are bounded by naturalistic assumptions to not include the supernatural in th eexplanation. Thus, whether or not they personally believe in God, their experiments must be limited to the observable.

But I think we as CHristians need to be careful as well. COuld God have crafted life in such a way? Why not?

cfdsl wrote:

cfldsl wrote: The prior provision for a problem is called a plan.

zoegirl wrote: by zoegirl on Mon Oct 13, 2008 4:49 pm
No, this would not convince an evolutionsist or a naturalist. YOu are assuming that a "plan" was needed. In their model a plan was not needed, random events combined with non=random chemical reactions was enough. If you want to convince them and rebut their theory , you must rebut the events and the probability, the books that were cited before address the actual probabilities.

zoegirl: On the contrary, the first living thing's reproductive capability is evidence of a plan.

Ahh, but, the key here is, whether the "plan" (really what we are talking about is the mechanism of replicating) could have arisen by accident. And whether there *is* a plan or not, the root issue still is whether is could happen.

I mean, you here this all the time is evolutionary circles, the appearance of design, the "blind" watchmaker. Evolutionists don't sipute that their is design, they dispute what this design means and whether this deisgn implies a designer.

cfdsl wrote:
The evolutionist's alternative is to postulate the "accidental" creation--an event the evidence for which we await still. An accidental creation being born with an accidental ability to overcome an unforeseeable predicament

Again, there was not "unforeseeable predicament". In an atheist's mindset, if reproducibility did not happen, we would not have evolved.....period. A bleak idea, absolutely, but completely in line with their presuppositions. No replicaiton? Oh well, we would not have evolved. We are a happy accident in their minds....there was no "unforeseeable predicament", no problem to solve. You language all revolves around some idea that the molcules somehow had to solve this. In the happy accident, if it happened, it happened, if it didn't, ah well.

So the issue then become did it happen that way, *could* molecules colliding with each other have led to auto-replciating molecules and cells? So far,yes to self-replicating, no to cells.

cfdsl wrote: is evidence of a plan because such an arrangement involves prior information. In an exchange between a creationist and an evolutionist, now would be the proper point for the creationist to say, "Your turn."

And a scientist would say....ok, we're working on it. It doesn't throw a scientist when we don't know everything. And I worry that your rebuttal comes perilously close to "God of the Gaps". What I hear from you is "they can't show me now, so that shows that it couldn't have happen that way, therefore I know that God had to be involved in this."

So what happens if in five years they do show that a very basic cell can be recreated? By OUR very own rules, we have given them their argument. "We have shown that it can happen this way, you said it couldn't"

I think that's where a lot of Christians don't think through their logic. Twenty years ago, the defense from Christians was "they don't have a self-replicating molecule" Well, RNA is self-replicating.

cfdsl wrote: It would not seem that creationists would/should/could/must answer every/any/some theory that seeps from the pagan mind.

I find this statment absurd. OF course we should!! We should be able to defend and examine anything that comes our way!! Why in the world wouldn't we?!?! This is GOD"S CREATION. We should be able to examine it thoughtfully and truthfully and WITHOUT FEAR.

cfdsl wrote: Rather, let the abiogenesis/evolution adherants make their offer of proof [of which they have none] in support of their theory. It would seem that this is the first step when actively advocating a position.

But why should they be the only ones to get dirty? First of all, it is an absolute joy to exmaine God's creation, whereever that leads us! All truth is God's truth!

They should offer proof. And it is up to us to examine and offer critiques.

cfdsl wrote: The term or concept "non-random" is not available to evolutionists for their own use; it is completely anathema to their thinking and their cause.

But we must be careful in understanding what random means with respect to abiogenesis. Collisions are random between molecules. However, what happens IN those collisions are not random. energy invovled in collisions as well as the likelihood of bonds being made mean that some reactions are not random. RNA molecules can self-replicate and self-polymerize. This is not random. It is a happy accident, but it would not be completely random once molecules assembled.

Mutations are random. Selection isn't.

Of course, belief in either creationism or evolutionism rests on faith--the acceptance, embracement, and reliance upon a doctrine [in this case] without provable elements. Adherants of the Truth do not hesitate to proclaim this faith; the other does not.

Of course we want to be adherants of the truth. But...

My only question would be, what is the truth with respect to How God created?

Robert Byers wrote: Evolution is simply not open to the scientific method and therefore conclusions about origins must be made with other means. Data plus deduction and sheer weight of evidence etc. However the scientific method is a actual method that must be in operation to assume you are doing science. This is why evolution has been a on going error. The few people involved misundestand they are just data collecting and making conclusions and not puting it to testable vigor.
Then they use the word science to justify their conclusions and so the public is lead astray.

Here's an example I read about where a prediction was made about where in the world some fossils would be, and it turned out to be right...doesn't that mean evolutionary theories can be tested?

http://hubble.quantumlinux.com/pipermai ... 01592.html

That is just another example of finding evidence and saying it supports your theory. Everyone says that the clams fossils on top of mount everest is evidence of their beliefs. It's just an example of something that fits, but it's not proof.

Of human and primate (taken from somewhere on the web):

“Skin: Human skin is not well adapted to the amount of sunlight striking Earth. It can be modified to survive extended exposure by greatly increasing melanin (its dark pigment) at its surface, which only the Negro and Aborigine races have achieved. All others must cover themselves with clothing or frequent shade or both, or sicken from radiation poisoning.

“Body Hair: Primates need not worry about direct exposure to sunlight because they are covered from head to toe in a distinctive pattern of long body-hair. Because they are quadrupeds (move on all fours), the thickest hair is on their back, the thinnest on the chest and abdomen. Humans have lost the all-over pelt, and we have completely switched our area of thickness to the chest and abdomen while wearing the thin part on our back.

“Fat: Humans have ten times as many fat cells attached to the underside of their skin as primates. If a primate is wounded by a gash or tear in the skin, when the bleeding stops the wound's edges lie flat near each other and can quickly close the wound by a process called "contracture". In humans, the fat layer is so thick that it pushes up through wounds and makes contracture difficult if not impossible. Also, contrary to the propaganda to try to explain this oddity, the fat under human skin does not compensate for the body hair we have lost. Only in water is its insulating capacity useful; in air, it is minimal at best.

This one is quite interresting:
“Head Hair: All primates have head hair that grows to a certain length and then stops. Human head hair grows to such lengths that it could be dangerous in a primitive situation. Thus, we have been forced to cut our head hair since we became a species, which may account for some of the sharp flakes of stones that are considered primitive hominid "tools".

“Fingernails and Toenails: All primates have fingernails and toenails that grow to a certain length and then stop, never needing paring. Human fingernails and toenails have always needed paring. Again, maybe those stone "tools" were not only for butchering animals.

“Skull: The human skull is nothing like the primate skull. There is hardly any fair morphological comparison to be made, apart from the general parts being the same. Their design and assembly are so radically different as to make attempts at comparison useless.

“Brains: The comparison here is even more radical because human brains are so vastly different. (To say "improved" or "superior" is unfair and not germane, because primate brains work perfectly well for what primates have to do to live and reproduce.)

“Locomotion: The comparison here is easily as wide as the comparison of brains and skulls.
Humans are bipedal; primates are quadrupeds. That says more than enough.

“Speech: Human throats are completely redesigned relative to primate throats. The larynx has dropped to a much lower position, so humans can break typical primate sounds into the tiny pieces of sound (by modulation) that have come to be human speech.

This one is quite interresting as well:
“Sex: Primate Females have oestrous cycles and are sexually receptive only at special times.
Human females have no oestrous cycle in the primate sense and are continually receptive to sex.”

Zebulon

Hmmm... So if evolution were to be disproved, would this mean that teh alternative would have to be a God? Why? Says who? Why the artificial limitations on the opptions? Personally, I am not a big fan of evolution, but then again, from what I've seen, there's absolutely no evidence of a God either. I look around, and see how little any of us truly know about teh universe, and it becomes clear to me that with our present understanding (or lack thereof) - we simply do not know what is out there, what it's agenda is, and what our purpose is.

ctn wrote:Hmmm... So if evolution were to be disproved, would this mean that teh alternative would have to be a God? Why? Says who? Why the artificial limitations on the opptions? Personally, I am not a big fan of evolution, but then again, from what I've seen, there's absolutely no evidence of a God either. I look around, and see how little any of us truly know about teh universe, and it becomes clear to me that with our present understanding (or lack thereof) - we simply do not know what is out there, what it's agenda is, and what our purpose is.

What have you studied or looked into to determine whether there's evidence for God or not?

ctn wrote:Hmmm... So if evolution were to be disproved, would this mean that teh alternative would have to be a God? Why? Says who? Why the artificial limitations on the opptions?

Evolutionists believe that Mother Nature is the highest power that created all things. If you believe that the universe and life on this planet was too complex for Mother Nature to do on her own, then a higher power must have been involved. Scientists have yet to answer how life began in the first place. And they have yet to answer why DNA is more complicated than the Linux kernel source code. Seriously, how does that happen naturally? But if you can come up with alternative ideas, I'm all ears. Or eyes in this case...

harth1026 wrote:And they have yet to answer why DNA is more complicated than the Linux kernel source code.

Thanks harth1026, it made my day.

Zebulon

I found this article and immediately thought of this website.
http://www.livescience.com/environment/ ... -fuel.html

A newfound fungus living in rainforest trees makes biofuel more efficiently than any other known method, researchers say. In fact, it's so good at turning plant matter into fuel that researchers say their discovery calls into question the whole theory of how crude oil was made by nature in the first place.

Now I know that this doesn't prove creation theory, but it does support it in that crude oil can be produced in a much shorter amount of time as opposed to millions of years. However, more importantly, it is a fine example of a well established scientific theory being proven wrong.