Evidence for God from Science

Having been raised in one of the southernmost parts of the Bible belt, its still hard to for me to wrap my head around evolution being compatible with Christianity. Before finding this site I was in the midst of a yearlong crisis of faith; on the one hand, I was born and raised in a God-fearing home. On the other, I saw what I perceived as contradictions in the Bible. Also damaging to my faith at the time was the new "science" movement that seems to have swept my generation away as people like Neil Tyson DeGrasse and Richard Dawkins are idolized while believers in creationism are mocked openly. I am deeply thankful to Rich Deem for this site for it rebalanced my faith when it seemed like everything was ready to topple over.

I've read Rich's arguments against macroevolution, and I have no problems understand the faults found in macroevolutionary theory. But that being said, I'm still trying to understand microevolution and to what extent Rich believes its true. I recently came across an article that cited examples of natural selection occurring even today, examples such as African elephants suddenly being born without tusks as if in self-defense against poachers:

http://www.cracked.com/article_19213_7- ... -eyes.html

I'd like to get some perspective on whether this can rightfully be called natural selection, and if its an example of evolution occurring at a micro level. Thank you!

Micro-evolution is small changes over time and macro-evolution is when those changes "add up" to enough that the original species can no longer mate with the "new" species.
EX:
A group of wolves micro-evolve to be able to live in a different environment than the original group they are from, over many generations ( 1000's or even millions) more changes ( micro-evolution) add up to them not being able to mate successfully with the original group and then you have macro-evolution.

XCM,

Rich Deem does accept micro evolution. Here's one link that shows he does.http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/evolution.html

Your best bet, if you want to see what Rich believes, is go to the home site, and search "micro evolution". I think you'll find what you're looking for.

And keep in mind, PaulSacramento believes in theistic evolution. Rich Deem is an old earth/progressive creationist, so Paul's views are a little different than Rich's.

And btw, welcome to the site.

RickD wrote:XCM,

Rich Deem does accept micro evolution. Here's one link that shows he does.http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/evolution.html

Your best bet, if you want to see what Rich believes, is go to the home site, and search "micro evolution". I think you'll find what you're looking for.

And keep in mind, PaulSacramento believes in theistic evolution. Rich Deem is an old earth/progressive creationist, so Paul's views are a little different than Rich's.

And btw, welcome to the site.

Yes quite so, allow me to make clear what I posted was the typical evolutionary biologist view on mirco and macro evolution.
I was not speaking for El Capitan.

XCM wrote:Having been raised in one of the southernmost parts of the Bible belt, its still hard to for me to wrap my head around evolution being compatible with Christianity. Before finding this site I was in the midst of a yearlong crisis of faith; on the one hand, I was born and raised in a God-fearing home. On the other, I saw what I perceived as contradictions in the Bible. Also damaging to my faith at the time was the new "science" movement that seems to have swept my generation away as people like Neil Tyson DeGrasse and Richard Dawkins are idolized while believers in creationism are mocked openly. I am deeply thankful to Rich Deem for this site for it rebalanced my faith when it seemed like everything was ready to topple over.

I've read Rich's arguments against macroevolution, and I have no problems understand the faults found in macroevolutionary theory. But that being said, I'm still trying to understand microevolution and to what extent Rich believes its true. I recently came across an article that cited examples of natural selection occurring even today, examples such as African elephants suddenly being born without tusks as if in self-defense against poachers:

http://www.cracked.com/article_19213_7- ... -eyes.html

I'd like to get some perspective on whether this can rightfully be called natural selection, and if its an example of evolution occurring at a micro level. Thank you!

One thing.
Some evolutionary biologist may have issues with that article because it seems to imply that evolution happens for a reason, like adaption to our environment, and most do NOT believe that.
Most believe that random mutations can cause certain attributes that, via natural selection, may allow the organism to survive BUT those mutations are random and NOT "directed" by anything.

Then, wouldn't it serve to reason that in the case of animals suddenly changing physical characteristics to survive, its more likely is being directed by something than not? That's what you mean theistic evolution, correct? I'm still wondering whether the examples given in that article fall in line with Rich's believes regarding microevolution or do they contradict it. Furthermore, is there any Biblical basis for believing in modern day, right-before-our-very eyes beneficial mutations occurring?

Thanks for warm welcome, guys.

XCM wrote:Then, wouldn't it serve to reason that in the case of animals suddenly changing physical characteristics to survive, its more likely is being directed by something than not? That's what you mean theistic evolution, correct? I'm still wondering whether the examples given in that article fall in line with Rich's believes regarding microevolution or do they contradict it. Furthermore, is there any Biblical basis for believing in modern day, right-before-our-very eyes beneficial mutations occurring?

Thanks for warm welcome, guys.

EVo Biologist do not agree that evolution is guided, the believe that random mutations caused by factors such as radiation, have NO direction.
It is AFTER they happen that the oganisim uses the mutations that best suit its needs ( natural selection of which mutations are beneficial) to "evolve".
Now, I personally do NOT agree that ALL mutation is so random, I am not a big fan of chance BUT even if that was the case then what we MAY still have is the process called "natural selection" being directed or guided ( perhaps).

PaulSacramento wrote:

XCM wrote:Then, wouldn't it serve to reason that in the case of animals suddenly changing physical characteristics to survive, its more likely is being directed by something than not? That's what you mean theistic evolution, correct? I'm still wondering whether the examples given in that article fall in line with Rich's believes regarding microevolution or do they contradict it. Furthermore, is there any Biblical basis for believing in modern day, right-before-our-very eyes beneficial mutations occurring?

Thanks for warm welcome, guys.

EVo Biologist do not agree that evolution is guided, the believe that random mutations caused by factors such as radiation, have NO direction.
It is AFTER they happen that the oganisim uses the mutations that best suit its needs ( natural selection of which mutations are beneficial) to "evolve".
Now, I personally do NOT agree that ALL mutation is so random, I am not a big fan of chance BUT even if that was the case then what we MAY still have is the process called "natural selection" being directed or guided ( perhaps).

Paul, they tried it with fruit flies, speeding up time, inducing random mutations and exposing them to all sorts of harsh conditions in the lab and not once did they turn into anything else but fruit flies, plus the mutants could never survive outside the lab.

bippy123 wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

XCM wrote:Then, wouldn't it serve to reason that in the case of animals suddenly changing physical characteristics to survive, its more likely is being directed by something than not? That's what you mean theistic evolution, correct? I'm still wondering whether the examples given in that article fall in line with Rich's believes regarding microevolution or do they contradict it. Furthermore, is there any Biblical basis for believing in modern day, right-before-our-very eyes beneficial mutations occurring?

Thanks for warm welcome, guys.

EVo Biologist do not agree that evolution is guided, the believe that random mutations caused by factors such as radiation, have NO direction.
It is AFTER they happen that the oganisim uses the mutations that best suit its needs ( natural selection of which mutations are beneficial) to "evolve".
Now, I personally do NOT agree that ALL mutation is so random, I am not a big fan of chance BUT even if that was the case then what we MAY still have is the process called "natural selection" being directed or guided ( perhaps).

Paul, they tried it with fruit flies, speeding up time, inducing random mutations and exposing them to all sorts of harsh conditions in the lab and not once did they turn into anything else but fruit flies, plus the mutants could never survive outside the lab.

The EB will just say that proves that mutation Can't be guided and must be a random and then "selected" via NS over many generations.

PaulSacramento wrote:

bippy123 wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

XCM wrote:Then, wouldn't it serve to reason that in the case of animals suddenly changing physical characteristics to survive, its more likely is being directed by something than not? That's what you mean theistic evolution, correct? I'm still wondering whether the examples given in that article fall in line with Rich's believes regarding microevolution or do they contradict it. Furthermore, is there any Biblical basis for believing in modern day, right-before-our-very eyes beneficial mutations occurring?

Thanks for warm welcome, guys.

EVo Biologist do not agree that evolution is guided, the believe that random mutations caused by factors such as radiation, have NO direction.
It is AFTER they happen that the oganisim uses the mutations that best suit its needs ( natural selection of which mutations are beneficial) to "evolve".
Now, I personally do NOT agree that ALL mutation is so random, I am not a big fan of chance BUT even if that was the case then what we MAY still have is the process called "natural selection" being directed or guided ( perhaps).

Paul, they tried it with fruit flies, speeding up time, inducing random mutations and exposing them to all sorts of harsh conditions in the lab and not once did they turn into anything else but fruit flies, plus the mutants could never survive outside the lab.

The EB will just say that proves that mutation Can't be guided and must be a random and then "selected" via NS over many generations.

In other words they don't have any evidence of it happening in the way they claim it happened.
So much for the scientific method lol
How long can they hold onto this bologna of a theory?

Thanks to a friend that recently gave me this link.
It basically explains in a nutshell why I started to have doubts about Macroevolution and now I'm an ID'st/old.earth creationist .

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intellig ... ent-448791

If an English professor is demolishing an evolutionary biologist in his own field what does that say about Darwinian evolution? Lol

Those darn stubborn fruit flies just won't cooperate and change into anything else. Why can't they become something other than fruit flies

http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encycloped ... he%20Flies

Those darn stubborn fruit flies just won't cooperate and change into anything else. Why can't they become something other than fruit flies

Because this is the wrong expectation. What if you get a mutated fly with no wings, would you call that thing a fly? technically, anatomically, generically?

If an English professor is demolishing an evolutionary biologist in his own field what does that say about Darwinian evolution? Lol

because the English professor is the poorer of the two when it comes to skill in biology. I agree with Evolutionary biologists, but when it comes to theology Richard Dawkins simply sucks. And that is the precise reason why I won't take his word on theology, why? because he is incapable to do so for technical reasons. He lacks the skill.
But as a scientist I agree with his theory and work. And I won't take a pulpit preacher word on science, why? exactly for the same reason, the preacher lacks the skill to make such assessment accurately.

Neo wrote:
And I won't take a pulpit preacher word on science, why? exactly for the same reason, the preacher lacks the skill to make such assessment accurately.

Neo, Hugh Ross is both a "pulpit preacher"(he's a pastor), and a very knowledgable astrophysicist.
So much for that logic.