Evidence for God from Science

Could someone explain if this theory is actually viable? I'm split on the matter and I'm trying to make up my mind. The concept behind it is quite logical, yet I don't know. The bible says otherwise.

The bible says nothing about the process. The only detailed creation method(if you can call it that) is the creation of man. Ironically, proving man came from ape has proven impossible for evolutionists. As far as plants and animals are concerned though, anything goes.

[quote="Mastermind"]The bible says nothing about the process. The only detailed creation method(if you can call it that) is the creation of man. Ironically, proving man came from ape has proven impossible for evolutionists. As far as plants and animals are concerned though, anything goes.[/quote]

That's just it, though. Evolutionists don't think that man evolved from apes. Both are said to have evolved from common ancestors. Specifically, [i]Kenyanthropus platyops[i]. Still, though. I wonder just how wise it is to brush off such a fairly sound theory, as the obvious anatomical evidence has exists from extinct hominins to the current ones - us. I mean, look at the cusps of molars, the skull structure, the innominate bone(s).

I guess what I'm trying to say is, how possible is it? And if it isn't, then why not? This is more about my curiosity than anything else. The only real hole in the argument of man's evolution is a lack of finding any fossils yet. But that seems rather illogical as all other evidence appears to lean towards the theory. It's like saying 10 years ago that extrasolar planets don't exist because we can't see them.

For the evolution theory to be true, where first life came from needs to be discovered.
As christians our theory/belief is that the living god created it. Our evidence is in our faith. We put our faith in God, a bit like someone in the middle of war who believes in peace sees the bigger picture, they can clearly see the steps for peace, so they follow them themselves, it's much the same with our faith, we see the steps and we do our best to follow them, when we fall and we do, we get up again and keep moving foward.

[b]]"For the evolution theory to be true, where first life came from needs to be discovered. As christians our theory/belief is that the living god created it. Our evidence is in our faith. We put our faith in God, a bit like someone in the middle of war who believes in peace sees the bigger picture, they can clearly see the steps for peace, so they follow them themselves, it's much the same with our faith, we see the steps and we do our best to follow them, when we fall and we do, we get up again and keep moving foward."[/b]

It's hard to say. I don't really think the origin is relevant unless you're actually trying to prove the existance of God. Let's say you have two people. They both believe in God, but one is a creationist and the other is an evolutionist. In theory, both ideas support the idea of a God who created things. The destination is the same, but the road taken is quite different.

Evolution simply states that organisms changed over time by adapting to their environment. In fact, evolution on a microscale, or microevolution, has been proven. I don't think that's the issue as much as macroevolution. Specifically humans evolving from earlier primates. I think that's where many things get complicated and people start to disagree.

That said, I'm curious more than anything as to why evolution is not a feasible theory and why the bible considered a better theory. Again, I'm split on the issue and I'm only trying to find some answers for my own understanding.

IWD wrote:]"For the evolution theory to be true, where first life came from needs to be discovered. As christians our theory/belief is that the living god created it. Our evidence is in our faith. We put our faith in God, a bit like someone in the middle of war who believes in peace sees the bigger picture, they can clearly see the steps for peace, so they follow them themselves, it's much the same with our faith, we see the steps and we do our best to follow them, when we fall and we do, we get up again and keep moving foward."

It's hard to say. I don't really think the origin is relevant unless you're actually trying to prove the existance of God. Let's say you have two people. They both believe in God, but one is a creationist and the other is an evolutionist. In theory, both ideas support the idea of a God who created things. The destination is the same, but the road taken is quite different.

Evolution simply states that organisms changed over time by adapting to their environment. In fact, evolution on a microscale, or microevolution, has been proven. I don't think that's the issue as much as macroevolution. Specifically humans evolving from earlier primates. I think that's where many things get complicated and people start to disagree.

That said, I'm curious more than anything as to why evolution is not a feasible theory and why the bible considered a better theory. Again, I'm split on the issue and I'm only trying to find some answers for my own understanding.

Evolution where Man Descended from Primate is wrong. WHY? The Bible says that Man was created in God's Image. However here is something to think of. If we evolved why does our Hair look different from Animals Hair? Animals Hair Grows to a certain length and then stops yet our Head Hair grows and Grows (never essentially stops). There are so many things about Humans that are different. Why can Cats see better in the dark then we can. Do you not think if we can from Animals and if Evolution Makes us better (survival of the Fittest right?) that we would be the top of the line in everything? We aren't however. I just don't understand that process and why those things are not true.

Thanks
Tim

IWD wrote:]"For the evolution theory to be true, where first life came from needs to be discovered. As christians our theory/belief is that the living god created it. Our evidence is in our faith. We put our faith in God, a bit like someone in the middle of war who believes in peace sees the bigger picture, they can clearly see the steps for peace, so they follow them themselves, it's much the same with our faith, we see the steps and we do our best to follow them, when we fall and we do, we get up again and keep moving foward."

It's hard to say. I don't really think the origin is relevant unless you're actually trying to prove the existance of God. Let's say you have two people. They both believe in God, but one is a creationist and the other is an evolutionist. In theory, both ideas support the idea of a God who created things. The destination is the same, but the road taken is quite different.

Evolution simply states that organisms changed over time by adapting to their environment. In fact, evolution on a microscale, or microevolution, has been proven. I don't think that's the issue as much as macroevolution. Specifically humans evolving from earlier primates. I think that's where many things get complicated and people start to disagree.

That said, I'm curious more than anything as to why evolution is not a feasible theory and why the bible considered a better theory. Again, I'm split on the issue and I'm only trying to find some answers for my own understanding.

Yes I know about micoevolution, but I thought we were talking the Evolution theory, what holds this full theory (macroevolution) up is life comes from life not non life. Microevolution is Evolution resulting from a succession of relatively small genetic variations that often cause the formation of new subspecies.
You ask us why the bible is a better theory than evolution, we know Microevolution occurs, but we don't agree with macroevolution and neither does science. (for macroevolution we need first life)
Our theory of God is proven in our faith, this is why the bible being the word of god is considered not a theory to us but truth, but for the sake of argument we will call it theory. There is enough evidence to support God if one wants to be bothered to look for it, and if one is not a lazy researcher. If you want to disprove God you must be prepared to spend years researching, other scientists have and they came to the same conclusion that the evidence they found after years of research supported the existence of God, while it doesn't prove his existence, it is enough for a Christian to prove the possibility of god, because from there it is faith that takes over.

IWD, there is a LOT to say on the subject. You can approach it several ways. Theologically, you just can't hold to theistic evolution and still believe in the inerrancy of Scriptures. Now, if you don't believe the Bible, then, obviously, that isn't much use to you. I'd say you have much bigger fish to fry . My general argument here would be that Jesus accepted the Genesis account as literal and historical, and if He is God in the flesh, then we should, too. If, then, you reject Jesus as the Incarnate God, you can see that, between you and me, evolution is not the important topic of conversation.

That said, from a scientific perspective, assuming we needed to discuss it, it is still flawed. The question of origins DOES matter. The simple reason is that naturalism presupposes uniformitarian principles govern the universe. Therefore, the same rules that brought about life are the same rules that developed it. What changes is only the circumstances in/on which these rules bear, and therefore, the outcomes are different. If, though, there are absolutely no ways for life to have gotten started, then the evolutionist has only two options. First, he can reject uniformitarian principles and therefore reject the very basis of naturalistic science. He would be forced to become a theistic evolutionist. Secondly, he can look to other possibilities, such as biblical creationism. I'd encourage you to investigate the ISSOL '99 convention. You'll find that as of that year, there had been absolutely NO pathways to life discovered. In fact, the situation for life's origins is only worse now than it was then! (c.f., for instance, Anthony Flew's conversion).

Outside of this, there are other problems. The Cambrian Explosion simply defies the evolutionary model, as does the complete absence of any evolutionary pathway for such modern animals like birds. It can be demonstrated that modern homo sapiens and there next closest "relative," homo erectus, from which they were thought to evolve, are separated by well over two hundred thousand years. Equally, evolution cannot explain, and in fact is contradicted by, such "personal" ideas as morality, personality, and self-consciousness.

Other problems include:

• Behe's irreducibility complex,
  Convergance all throughout the evolutionary pathway,
  The lack of mechanism for punctuated equilibrium,
  The non-evolution of some very obvious evolutionary possibilities (i.e., the nautilus does not yet have a lens. Why? c.f. Richard Dawkins' The Blind Watchmaker),
  The origin of sexual reproduction, etc.

After all this, there is still simply a lack of actual case studies that do anything to support the evolutionary model. Every new fossil is simply categorized based on a preconceived notion, and these fossils fit just as well into the Creationistic scheme as the evolutionary one. In fact, in over one hundred years of evolutionary study, now, we have absolutely no observed changes. We DO have some instances of speciation, but a study of these will reveal that they are not at all what they claim to be, that is, observed macroevolutionary changes.

In short, evolution is supported on by its own framework, which, as the above indicates, is not as strong as we would want to think it is. Further, its very foundations--abiogenesis--are simply non-existent.

I'd encourage you to review the information on the subject here and at http://www.reasons.org for more. Hope that helps,

God bless

Evolution is only logical if nobody tells you of all the problems with it. If you watched Bill Clinton in an interview, he said he believed he was a good man and president because of two or three good things he did....but, he neglects to add in all of the things he did badly. So, if you only know the good things he mentions, then, of course, you're bound to think he is a good guy. My favorite thing is this-the law of biogenesis, which says that life comes from life. Obvious implications there. I have seen many statistics, ranging from the chances of the world being as it is, to the chances of a cell evolving (and, it was hilarious, the chances were 1 in 10 to the power of over 2 million for a cell 1/10 the size of the smallest cell known). Another is there is no machine to make things evolve. Mutations and natural selection are not those engines, though they are claimed to be. Mutations harm, kill, or do not greatly affect the organism (note that none IMPROVE the organism). Natural selection causes animals to stay around a norm. For example, if a mutation causes white hair instead of red or something....natural selection would remove almost all traces of white instead of making this color more dominant (though it's better for survival and such). The last one I will mention is the complexity of DNA and all of the involved parts. I have a link so you can look at it without me muddling it up. http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebo ... #wp1362067 That's the best one I found. You can go on a few more pages and see more on DNA alone.

So, in conclusion, to an atheist or a cosmic humanist (atheism with a supernatural spin), evolution is logical...only because they will not bow down to their Creator-through any means necessary.



Interesting to know that life is difficult to define. According to the 10 things required for something to be alive, invalids are not alive, small children and babies are not alive, and mentally retarded people are not alive...and neither are sterile people. LOL

Outside of this, there are other problems. The Cambrian Explosion simply defies the evolutionary model, as does the complete absence of any evolutionary pathway for such modern animals like birds.

I thought I'd add to that-the Cambrian Explosion, though called an explosion of life, is an explosion of death. There are many animals (and possibly plants, can't remember) that no longer exist found in this layer....and these animals and such are found fully formed and diversified. No traces of an original multicelluar organism that would have needed "millions" of years to evolve.

Jac, the only way theistic evolution wouldn't fit with the bible is if we claim Man evolved from anything other than directly from bacteria* or base elements found in the Earth. In fact, I personally believe man to be so different that I highly doubt he even originated from Earth.


*The jews were unaware of the existance of bacteria, so there wouldn't be much difference between a chunk of bacteria and dust. As such, I think it's only fair that it be included as a possibility. I suspect that this type of bacteria would be simmilar to stem cells, and the finding of such bacteria would be, in my opinion, a huge deathblow to naturalism and a boost to ID.

Even if you consider the 7 days as a symbol or story, the fact that God made Adam out of clay and breathed life into him, as opposed to speaking him into being like the rest of creation, shows man to be above all other forms of life and definately not related

Tim, a couple things.

Contradiction of the scriptures does not, in any way, prove evolution wrong.

You answered your question regarding animal hair. Evolution. Natural selection favours hair growth. Simple as that. "Animals Hair Grows to a certain length and then stops." You mean like the hair on our arms, chests and legs?

Why are cats able to see in the dark? Because their environment demanded that better nightvision pass on to the next generation. They also possess a tapetum lucidum, a shining mirror-like layer of cells within the retina. In fact, many nocturnal animals have something like this.

Survival of the fittest was a term brought on by Darwin's cousin. Eventually it was adopted by the National Socialists for their propaganda machine. Survival of the fittest . As for making us better. There is no better, there is no goal.

According to Darwins theory of Evolution the first living cells were believed to have come into being as part of the primordial broth, this process is the theory of abiogenesis. This broth was thought to contain a soup of chemicals that formed into simple single celled organisms.In those days many people put faith is theories such as this one, that spontaneous generation could arise from non living matter. It was much easier for them the believe this because not much was known about cell structure back then.

A recent (2001) Times newspaper headline shows illustrates the above thinking. The headline stated that "Origin of the species is traced to pond life". The newspaper article comments on a paper (King and Carroll, 2001) in which the organism Monosiga brevicollis was found to have a protein similar to one found in animals.

Scientists consider the moment at which multi-celled animals, (or metazoa), evolved from the protozoans (e.g. organism such as amoebae and Monosiga brevicollis) to be one of the turning points in the history of life on Earth, and to have occurred about 600 million years ago.

However, as Monosiga brevicollis (see above) is a eukaryotic protozoa it is by no means the most simple single celled organism on the planet today. If we are to believe the theory of evolution, this organism itself must have evolved from more simple single celled organisms such as bacteria.

read more @ http://www.wasdarwinright.net/simplecells.htm

Sorry, Deb, have to differ from you here. The ToE does not say anything about how life came into existence, it assumes that first life was already there, and that the various mechanisms of evolution took over from there.

Natural selection in evolution seems to have been dealt a rather hard blow by one of their own lately:

"Adaptation by natural selection is the centrepiece of biology. Yet evolutionary biologists may be deluding themselves if they think they have a good handle on the typical strength of selection in nature. These results raise some perplexing questions. Principal among them is the apparent paradox that typical studies of selection do not have the statistical power necessary to detect selection that appears unrealistically strong. Unfortunately, this paradox will not be resolved simply by accumulating more data of the same ilk, as all reviews identify problems with our current methods. How, then, are we to obtain a good handle on the true power of selection in nature?
Evolutionary biologists will have to resolve this uncertainty by determining how best to measure and judge the strength of selection, and by conducting more robust studies of selection. Meanwhile, we are only deluding ourselves that we have a good handle on the typical power of selection in nature. Once we do, we can begin to investigate how humans are changing selection pressures, and whether populations and species will be able to adapt accordingly"

Andrew P. Hendry (McGill University, Montreal), latest copy of 'Nature' magazine, admitting that natural selection is not nearly as powerful as previously thought. He is not a creationist by any stretch of the imagination, he is an avid evolutionist.