Evidence for God from Science

I continue to see Atheists and Christians fighting against each-other on various websites, and usually I see things such as "Evolution is science, you are ignorant for not believing it" or from the other viewpoint, "Evolution is easily false, we didn't evolve from apes."

I was just wondering, what are the key points that each party leans on for their argument?

eric246 wrote:I was just wondering, what are the key points that each party leans on for their argument?

The key point each party base their argument on is ignorance egged on by an argumentative spirit.

FL

eric246 wrote:I continue to see Atheists and Christians fighting against each-other on various websites, and usually I see things such as "Evolution is science, you are ignorant for not believing it" or from the other viewpoint, "Evolution is easily false, we didn't evolve from apes."

I was just wondering, what are the key points that each party leans on for their argument?

It actually has little to do with science but has more to do with philosophy. Atheists do not have the upper hand in science... They are simply practicing their religion.

Gman wrote:

eric246 wrote:I continue to see Atheists and Christians fighting against each-other on various websites, and usually I see things such as "Evolution is science, you are ignorant for not believing it" or from the other viewpoint, "Evolution is easily false, we didn't evolve from apes."

I was just wondering, what are the key points that each party leans on for their argument?

It actually has little to do with science but has more to do with philosophy. Atheists do not have the upper hand in science... They are simply practicing their religion.

I was speaking to an atheist friend the other day who said he doesn't believe in God but rather believes in science. When I asked him where science conflicts with Christianity, and told him that it isn't a case of either/or, he was a little taken aback. He tried to wave it away but I insisted that he really think about what he said to me. I see these assumptions flying about all over the place and it literally beggars belief.

DannyM wrote:
I was speaking to an atheist friend the other day who said he doesn't believe in God but rather believes in science. When I asked him where science conflicts with Christianity, and told him that it isn't a case of either/or, he was a little taken aback. He tried to wave it away but I insisted that he really think about what he said to me. I see these assumptions flying about all over the place and it literally beggars belief.

It takes way more faith to believe in atheism. You really have to bend science to say that it doesn't involve any designer.. In fact I would say the religion of atheism is based on little or any actual science.

I guess more of what I'm saying is, why do so many atheists select evolution as their main argument to God not being real? What is it in evolution that they are so sure about?

On a side topic, a majority of my friends are atheistic/agnostic, and I seem to find that they are generally sad/depressed with life, smoking, drinking, doing drugs, seeking sexual encounters, and although not all of my agnostic/atheist friends are like that, it seems like the majority are. My one agnostic friend was actually intrigued by Christianity when I told him "if everyone on this planet lived a true Christian lifestyle, we'd practically be living in a utopia" which to me is one of the reasons I believe so strongly in Christianity. I try to imagine everyone in the world as another religion, or having a similar set of beliefs, but if everyone in the world was Christian, we really would be in an amazing world.

eric246 wrote:I guess more of what I'm saying is, why do so many atheists select evolution as their main argument to God not being real? What is it in evolution that they are so sure about?

On a side topic, a majority of my friends are atheistic/agnostic, and I seem to find that they are generally sad/depressed with life, smoking, drinking, doing drugs, seeking sexual encounters, and although not all of my agnostic/atheist friends are like that, it seems like the majority are. My one agnostic friend was actually intrigued by Christianity when I told him "if everyone on this planet lived a true Christian lifestyle, we'd practically be living in a utopia" which to me is one of the reasons I believe so strongly in Christianity. I try to imagine everyone in the world as another religion, or having a similar set of beliefs, but if everyone in the world was Christian, we really would be in an amazing world.

As an atheist, I assure you that the second part of your assertion is simply false. If one looks at the rates of what all sides of the debate would deem aberrant behavior, it is the theists in which these behaviors occur in greater qtys...esp. when adjusted for relative representation in the population of the US. I, for instance participate in none of the behaviors that my atheism - according to you - pre-disposes me to...the same for all my 'out' friends that are non-theistic.

Here's a link to divorce rates, for instance: http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_dira.htm

As far as the first part of your assertion, atheists by and large do not concern themselves with evolution..it is accepted as fact. Nothing in biology makes any sense whatever if you remove naturalistic evolution from the equation. There was an interesting experiment done recently.

Details: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... snout.html This is what the evo-devo crowd has predicted for a long time. Now we see evidence that halting embryonic development at critical stages 'rewinds' evolution.

Essentially, the points against evolution amount to ignorance - sometimes willful, sometimes not - and lack of the scientific community to better educate the populace. Evolution will always remain a theory..even as it demonstrated to be fact. That's just the way science works. It is also 'just a theory' that the earth revolves around the sun.

Be vary careful when using the word 'seem.' It's a good guide to arriving at your own set of facts. It 'seems' like the sun rises. It 'seems' like we're made of really solid matter.

osmium wrote:As far as the first part of your assertion, atheists by and large do not concern themselves with evolution..it is accepted as fact. Nothing in biology makes any sense whatever if you remove naturalistic evolution from the equation

What's naturalistic evolution?

DannyM wrote:

osmium wrote:As far as the first part of your assertion, atheists by and large do not concern themselves with evolution..it is accepted as fact. Nothing in biology makes any sense whatever if you remove naturalistic evolution from the equation

What's naturalistic evolution?

Danny, should we bother explaining to this guy here why the implications of atheistic naturalism deny ANY kind of sense, reason, free will, logic, knowledge...?

Reactionary wrote:

DannyM wrote:

osmium wrote:As far as the first part of your assertion, atheists by and large do not concern themselves with evolution..it is accepted as fact. Nothing in biology makes any sense whatever if you remove naturalistic evolution from the equation

What's naturalistic evolution?

Danny, should we bother explaining to this guy here why the implications of atheistic naturalism deny ANY kind of sense, reason, free will, logic, knowledge...?

Let's see where it goes. . .

DannyM wrote:

Reactionary wrote:Danny, should we bother explaining to this guy here why the implications of atheistic naturalism deny ANY kind of sense, reason, free will, logic, knowledge...?

Let's see where it goes. . .

OK, here goes nothing...

osmium wrote:As an atheist, I assure you that the second part of your assertion is simply false. If one looks at the rates of what all sides of the debate would deem aberrant behavior, it is the theists in which these behaviors occur in greater qtys...esp. when adjusted for relative representation in the population of the US. I, for instance participate in none of the behaviors that my atheism - according to you - pre-disposes me to...the same for all my 'out' friends that are non-theistic.

If I understood Eric246's post correctly, he said that it seems like the majority of his friends behave in the way he described. Unless you're a friend of his, his statement doesn't invoke you. He just made an observation.

osmium wrote:Here's a link to divorce rates, for instance: http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_dira.htm

27% vs. 21%? You've got to be kidding me. You claim that a 6%-difference (actually no difference when involving only Catholics and Lutherans, for instance) in a sample that involves 3,854 people, is in any way statistically significant? I won't even bother to reply to the comments made by the atheist "spokespersons", their atheist morals which they can't account for, and their usual antitheist rants.

osmium wrote:As far as the first part of your assertion, atheists by and large do not concern themselves with evolution..it is accepted as fact. Nothing in biology makes any sense whatever if you remove naturalistic evolution from the equation.

Then tell me what does make sense, if our thoughts are a mere by-production of atom movement? How can chemical reactions think?

osmium wrote:There was an interesting experiment done recently.

Details: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... snout.html This is what the evo-devo crowd has predicted for a long time. Now we see evidence that halting embryonic development at critical stages 'rewinds' evolution.

Oooh, evidence...

Every few months we have new, revolutionary "evidence" for evolution. Usually it's about ifs, buts and maybes, or viciously circular reasoning. Really, assume that birds had snouts, then alter their DNA so they can grow such snouts. It's called genetical engineering, and it's certainly not random, as you want to prove evolution to be.

EDIT: I don't necessarily agree with all the doctrines of Answers in Genesis, but their comment briefly explained what happened in that experiment:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... e-08272011

As I said, we come across such "evidence" for evolution virtually every day.

osmium wrote:Evolution will always remain a theory..even as it demonstrated to be fact. That's just the way science works.

Science requires knowledge. Atheistic naturalism can not account for knowledge, since it reduces human thoughts to random atom movement, that is subject to the laws of physics and chemistry. I don't expect an electrical discharge to tell me the truth... Oh, sorry! Another electrical discharge!

osmium wrote:Be vary careful when using the word 'seem.' It's a good guide to arriving at your own set of facts. It 'seems' like the sun rises. It 'seems' like we're made of really solid matter.

Well, we most certainly aren't ghosts, that's for sure!

Reactionary wrote:

osmium wrote:There was an interesting experiment done recently.

Details: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... snout.html This is what the evo-devo crowd has predicted for a long time. Now we see evidence that halting embryonic development at critical stages 'rewinds' evolution.

Oooh, evidence...

Every few months we have new, revolutionary "evidence" for evolution. Usually it's about ifs, buts and maybes, or viciously circular reasoning. Really, assume that birds had snouts, then alter their DNA so they can grow such snouts. It's called genetical engineering, and it's certainly not random, as you want to prove evolution to be.

It's remarkable what investigator interference can achieve.

Experts changed the DNA of chicken embryos in the early stage of their development, enabling them to undo evolutionary progress and give the creatures snouts which are thought to have been lost in the cretaceous period millions of years ago.

The scientific revelation of 'rewinding' evolution could pave the way for scientists altering DNA in the other direction and use the same process to create species better able to adapt to Earth's climate…

Arkhat Abzhanov, an evolutionary biologist at Harvard University, developed the chickens with snouts by cutting a square hole in the shell of a chicken egg and dropping in a small gelatinous protein bead before watching the embryo develop…

By altering the DNA of chickens to resemble alligator genes before the beak developed, Dr Abzhanov was able to change the evolutionary path of chickens so that they grew snouts instead.

DannyM wrote:It's remarkable what investigator interference can achieve.

Experts changed the DNA of chicken embryos in the early stage of their development, enabling them to undo evolutionary progress and give the creatures snouts which are thought to have been lost in the cretaceous period millions of years ago.

The scientific revelation of 'rewinding' evolution could pave the way for scientists altering DNA in the other direction and use the same process to create species better able to adapt to Earth's climate…

Arkhat Abzhanov, an evolutionary biologist at Harvard University, developed the chickens with snouts by cutting a square hole in the shell of a chicken egg and dropping in a small gelatinous protein bead before watching the embryo develop…

By altering the DNA of chickens to resemble alligator genes before the beak developed, Dr Abzhanov was able to change the evolutionary path of chickens so that they grew snouts instead.

I'm telling you, intelligent design is a lie!

Ich persönlich denke, das neue über die Australopithecus zu finden und mit Neanderthal-Mensch interecction weiteren erwies sich die Theorie der Evolution.

Weiter und weiter treiben von der Konstruktion, seit ich wirklich darüber tiefer nachzudenken begann. Es macht einfach keinen Sinn für mich, dass Gott magisch pop uns ins Dasein. Ich denke, Gott folgte den Gesetzen begann er das Universum mit, und nur dazu beigetragen, uns ins Dasein zu führen.

Murray wrote:Ich persönlich denke, das neue über die Australopithecus zu finden und mit Neanderthal-Mensch interecction weiteren erwies sich die Theorie der Evolution.

Pretpostavljam da misliš na fosil Australopithecus sediba. O njemu se priča već godinu dana, no mnogi ga ne smatraju dostojnim statusa Homo, što je objašnjeno u sljedećem članku:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... e-09102011

Murray wrote:Weiter und weiter treiben von der Konstruktion, seit ich wirklich darüber tiefer nachzudenken begann. Es macht einfach keinen Sinn für mich, dass Gott magisch pop uns ins Dasein. Ich denke, Gott folgte den Gesetzen begann er das Universum mit, und nur dazu beigetragen, uns ins Dasein zu führen.

Ne bih isključio mogućnost teističke evolucije, no za sada smatram kako za nju nema dovoljno dokaza. U ovoj raspravi to nije toliko ni bitno, budući da mi nastojimo demantirati naturalističku evoluciju.

--------------------------------------------------------------

Now tell me, Murray, why do you write in German?

Since I don't speak German, I had to spend some time playing with Google Translator to understand what you meant to say. Because of that, this above is a little challenge for you.