Evidence for God from Science

I'm looking for a polite exchange here, no matter what your worldview. I'd like to know how Darwinian evolution - chance mutations + natural selection - can account for the complexities of life. I'm looking for empirical data, and not just the "theoretically plausible". I'm looking for solid explanations as to how random mutations + natural selection could, not only produce, but build upon the complex information inherent in the a single cell to produce rational beings capable of comprehending that which lies outside the universe. I explicitly do not want to hear the anti-empirical claim that, "given enough time", blah blah blah; I want solid science! If our universe is all that there is, then why is it that I can comprehend things which lie outside of this universe? Why is my brain not constrained by the limitations of this universe, if this is "all that there is"?

Darwinism is a worldview. As a worldview, it owes me an explanation. I'll have more questions, for sure, but let us start as we have and proceed from there.
-
-

That's the million dollar question... Good luck with that. Beliefs, yes. Solid evidence? Absolutely not. You will have to take it on faith just like any other religion. It's NEVER been witnessed. Miracles are required too...

Something more specifically that I would like to know is, if Darwinian evolution really happened, how did it form the eye as well as the sense of sight? I have a feeling the only kind of answers I would get from evolutionists would be something like "well since we needed sight and it promotes survival advantages...yadda yadda yadda..." But the only other thing that I could get is some similiar stuff I've heard over the years such as the first eyes formed on fish started out as mere skin blemishes or sun spots and over time along with mutations produced the highly complex eyes that you and I have. I was also going to ask my fellow Christian apologists in here what other kinds of answers or responses have you got from evolutionists on how the eye was formed? Thanks for your time, God bless.

Well, they better not say "they needed" because that has nothing to do with the development of novel structures. Selction can only work on the phenotypes that are present, it can do nothing to generate the phenotypes in the first place.

The Platypus, did this really evolve? Now come on Darwin, really, this? It is a duck billed, otter footed, beaver tailed, animal with two poison filled claws on it's back feet. That is just freaky, and have you ever seen it's skull, freaky!


Yeah.... wouldn't want to wake up and see that in the morning.

Oh and when they walk on land, they knuckle walk.

Just adding to the platypus thing, they breastfeed their young by releasing milk through their pores which collect in dips on the abdomen, allowing young to lap it up as it collects.

No Darwinian takers?
-
-

I will try to present somethings but this is the busiest time of the year for me and I am a bit frazzled....every now and then I remind myself to breath...

Look for me to post more in a couple of weeks.

Suffice to say there are quite a lot of research supporting microevolution....the reserach for macroevolution (or historical evolution, if you want) is, of course, locked in history and so rests on comparative data.

Gotta go...

Danny, If you're really looking for the scientific arguments for what you asked about evolution, this probably isn't the best forum for finding your answer. Most people here probably don't believe that Darwinian Evolution offers the best explanation for origins. You could probably find some websites that are evolutionist websites. Try going to the websites and ask the same questions. I suggest that you ask like you're really looking for their answers, not looking to argue with them. If you seem sincerely interested, I bet you'll be surprised how well they treat you. If you go in with an agenda, you may not find their answers helpful.

RickD wrote:Danny, If you're really looking for the scientific arguments for what you asked about evolution, this probably isn't the best forum for finding your answer. Most people here probably don't believe that Darwinian Evolution offers the best explanation for origins. You could probably find some websites that are evolutionist websites. Try going to the websites and ask the same questions. I suggest that you ask like you're really looking for their answers, not looking to argue with them. If you seem sincerely interested, I bet you'll be surprised how well they treat you. If you go in with an agenda, you may not find their answers helpful.

Rick, first of all I'm well aware what this site is, and I know there are plenty of Darwinists who browse this forum; occasionally they get brave and register.

Second, you're assuming I haven't already been on plenty of atheist/evolutionist websites.

Third, I really need no advice from you on this, Rick, so spare me, please.

DannyM wrote:

RickD wrote:Danny, If you're really looking for the scientific arguments for what you asked about evolution, this probably isn't the best forum for finding your answer. Most people here probably don't believe that Darwinian Evolution offers the best explanation for origins. You could probably find some websites that are evolutionist websites. Try going to the websites and ask the same questions. I suggest that you ask like you're really looking for their answers, not looking to argue with them. If you seem sincerely interested, I bet you'll be surprised how well they treat you. If you go in with an agenda, you may not find their answers helpful.

Rick, first of all I'm well aware what this site is, and I know there are plenty of Darwinists who browse this forum; occasionally they get brave and register.

Second, you're assuming I haven't already been on plenty of atheist/evolutionist websites.

Third, I really need no advice from you on this, Rick, so spare me, please.

I'm sorry, Mr. Snappypants. The only thing I assumed was that you were actually looking for the best answers from someone who actually believed in Darwinism. I didn't mean to rile you Danny. I didn't realize you woke up on the wrong side of the pond this morning. I was just trying to help.

RickD wrote:

DannyM wrote:

RickD wrote:Danny, If you're really looking for the scientific arguments for what you asked about evolution, this probably isn't the best forum for finding your answer. Most people here probably don't believe that Darwinian Evolution offers the best explanation for origins. You could probably find some websites that are evolutionist websites. Try going to the websites and ask the same questions. I suggest that you ask like you're really looking for their answers, not looking to argue with them. If you seem sincerely interested, I bet you'll be surprised how well they treat you. If you go in with an agenda, you may not find their answers helpful.

Rick, first of all I'm well aware what this site is, and I know there are plenty of Darwinists who browse this forum; occasionally they get brave and register.

Second, you're assuming I haven't already been on plenty of atheist/evolutionist websites.

Third, I really need no advice from you on this, Rick, so spare me, please.

I'm sorry, Mr. Snappypants. The only thing I assumed was that you were actually looking for the best answers from someone who actually believed in Darwinism. I didn't mean to rile you Danny. I didn't realize you woke up on the wrong side of the pond this morning. I was just trying to help.

Mr. Snappypants...Haven't heard that in a while! I found your post rather condescending, and actually took umbrage with your assumption that I hadn't already asked questions on evolutionist/atheist websites, an assumption couched in your very suggestion that I might "try going to [these] websites and ask the same questions." I have been on several such sites. But, if you did not mean offence then I accept that and apologise for my brusqueness in replying. I have been a bit of a Mr. Snappypants today, so I do apologise for that.

Mr. Snappypants.

Must say it prompted a giggle....

You guys need to snap out of it.

Getting back to Danny's question... In a nutshell, what the evolutionists tend to do is use microevolution to prove macroevolution. We all know that certain aspects of microevolution does occur and it mainly happens with adaptability of the organism to it's environment. It does change in time, and we do have some facts to prove that. However we could also say that it was pre-programmed by the creator to do this, just like in the different races of people we see today, or the different types of cats, etc.. But what the evolutionist do is say that since these small changes happen on a small scale, then we can project this belief into the bigger changes as well (i.e. macroevolution). Therefore macroevolution is also a fact that has empirical evidence. And then what they do is say that there really isn't any micro or macro evolution. There is no distinction between the two.. We will just call the whole thing evolution, and go along on our merry way... Therefore it is indisputable..

Once you know this.. It's easy to diffuse their bomb. I mean firecracker..