Evidence for God from Science

Neo claimed his thread was only reference links to show how evolution is a fact. And Neo said:

This should not be an issue for you because I haven't asked anyone to endorse it. Why what I find true, is any business of yours to correct? Am I correcting you, am I saying PC is a weak belief system or YEC SUCKS...all I have done is present evidence for my stance, PROPER EVIDENCE.

This blog that Neo posted does a little more than presenting proper evidence for evolution. Look at the blog's dedicated purpose:

Carumbas Blog

This BLOG is dedicated to exposing the fradulence of creationism.

I picked this link Neo posted to show that while the author does try to prove evolution, his entire blog is dedicated to:"exposing the fradulence of creationism".

Right off the bat, this is a poor choice of links, that goes beyond the scope of just proving evolution.

While the link says 10 things predicting evolution, let's see if they also fit into Creationism(specifically old earth)

1. We should not find any early hominid fossils (such as Australopithicus, Ardipithecus, or Kenyanthropus) in Australia, North America, South America, Antarctica, Siberia, or on any oceanic islands removed from Africa.

Don't see how that specifically predicts evolution, while ruling out Progressive Creationism(PC).

2. No birds will have mammary glands or hair.

same as above. Special creation and PC believe God created birds different from mammals.

3. No mammals will have feathers (even though feathers are an excellent means of insulation).

Same as 2.

4. No fish or amphibians will have differentiated or cusped teeth, since these are only characteristics of mammals.

Ok, then if this is true, evolution is proved false.
The sheepshead fish has human teeth

5. We should never find mammalian or bird fossils in or before Devonian deposits, before reptiles had diverged from the amphibian tetrapod line. This excludes Precambrian, Cambrian, Ordovician, and
Silurian deposits, encompassing 92% of the earth's geological history.

If birds and mammals were created after tetrapods, then this still wouldn't prove evolution.

6. We will never find a living or fossilized true chimera such as Pegasus, Mermaid or Griffin.

How would that prove evolution. It just means we would have no evidence one existed.

7. We will never find birds with both wings and arms, since the evolution of wings necessarily means the loss of arms.

God could have created birds with wings, and no arms. Doesn't prove evolution.

8. No marine mammal (such as dolphins, porpoises and whales) will have gills despite the fact that gills would be very beneficial.

Marine mammals were created as mammals, not fish. Dolphins, porpoises and whales do quite well without gills.

9. No reptile or mammal will have eyes without retinal blind spots. This is because poor design cannot be "fixed" by evolutionary processes, even if correcting the problem would be beneficial for the organism. The only "fixing" that is allowed evolutionarily is relatively minor modification of what already exists.

Now he thinks he can design a better eye than God.

10. All living things on Earth will share the same nucleic acid genetic material.

Again, this does not prove evolution. It proves evolution is a possibility. But not while disproving creation. If God used the same chemicals to create all life, then at least some of the same genetic material would be in all life on earth.

So, not one of those predictions would prove evolution. And by the author's admission, number 4 disproves evolution.

Also from the blog:

Creationists will undoubtedly respond that many of these things are simple evidence of a common designer. In fact, if true, that designer is not very competent.

Now God is incompetent. How is this not Anti-God?

Consider prediction 10 in relation to the recently well-publicized swine flu. That flu jumped from pigs to humans. That is only possible because pigs and humans share the same genetic code. So a truly competent designer would have, presumably, used different genetic codes in pigs and humans in order to prevent the possibility of such an event from taking place. Note that this is NOT explained by the "Fall of Man" since the genetic codes in humans and pigs can't have changed since the [mythical] Garden of Eden.

Not only is the author presuming the way God should have designed pigs and humans, but he also insults Christians who believe scripture, by calling the Garden of Eden "mythical".

There are many other predictions made by evolution.

There are NONE made by creationism.

Unless, of course, some creationist can come up with a similar set of predictions which, if not found to be true, would falsify their beliefs.

In Hugh Ross' book More Than A Theory, Ross does make predictions for his creation theory. I realize this blog was written before Ross published that book.

So, at best this thread is an outdated joke, that does nothing to prove evolution. But it does a good job of insulting Creationism, and its Creator.

I would not normally have a problem with this blog being used in a forum open for debate, which wasn't a reference only thread. But Neo insisted on a evolution only reference thread.

RickD wrote:

6. We will never find a living or fossilized true chimera such as Pegasus, Mermaid or Griffin.

How would that prove evolution. It just means we would have no evidence one existed.

You did a good job answering these. I just wanted to add something to this point. The duck-billed platypus should qualify as a chimera.

pat34lee wrote:

RickD wrote:

6. We will never find a living or fossilized true chimera such as Pegasus, Mermaid or Griffin.

How would that prove evolution. It just means we would have no evidence one existed.

You did a good job answering these. I just wanted to add something to this point. The duck-billed platypus should qualify as a chimera.

Um...except it's, y'know, not a chimera?

It's a, funnily enough, monotreme. An egg laying, warm blooded mammal.

The bill/tail/etc may look like parts of other animals, but they are actually completely different types of organs...and actually have some very different properties, such as the bill actually being sensitive to electrical impulses (Kind of like a shark) for sensing invertebrate prey beneath river mud. The bill is more like leather than the...um..what ever a bird's bill/beak is made of.

Any one want to poke fun at Kangaroos, emu's etc while we're here?

"There is nothing more absurd, than a six foot, flightless bird."

Also....*Cough* Living transitional form...*Cough*.....

Much cheers to all.

Thadeyus wrote:Um...except it's, y'know, not a chimera?

It's a, funnily enough, monotreme. An egg laying, warm blooded mammal.

The bill/tail/etc may look like parts of other animals, but they are actually completely different types of organs...and actually have some very different properties, such as the bill actually being sensitive to electrical impulses (Kind of like a shark) for sensing invertebrate prey beneath river mud. The bill is more like leather than the...um..what ever a bird's bill/beak is made of.

It is a one-off animal with no ancestry. How did it become the only mammal to lay eggs, have poison glands in its claws, legs that are made like and work more like a lizard than a mammal, etc?

pat34lee wrote:It is a one-off animal with no ancestry. How did it become the only mammal to lay eggs, have poison glands in its claws, legs that are made like and work more like a lizard than a mammal, etc?

Um...well there's also the Echidna..which is another egg laying mammal. Then you have the Marsupials. Who birth live, semi formed young who go on to develop in little more than a slightly more specialized fold of skin.

As for Platypus and Echidna ancestry? I'd have to do a Google search to learn more.

What I was pointing out is that it doesn't fit the criteria of 'Chimaera'. Since it lives alongside both another egg laying mammal AND mammals which aren't placental.

Heck, on the same continent you also have a pine tree (Wolimi Pine) which has managed to survive, in a ditch, unchanged since the time of the dinosaurs.

RickD wrote:Neo claimed his thread was only reference links to show how evolution is a fact. And Neo said:

This should not be an issue for you because I haven't asked anyone to endorse it. Why what I find true, is any business of yours to correct? Am I correcting you, am I saying PC is a weak belief system or YEC SUCKS...all I have done is present evidence for my stance, PROPER EVIDENCE.

This blog that Neo posted does a little more than presenting proper evidence for evolution. Look at the blog's dedicated purpose:

Carumbas Blog

This BLOG is dedicated to exposing the fradulence of creationism.

I picked this link Neo posted to show that while the author does try to prove evolution, his entire blog is dedicated to:"exposing the fradulence of creationism".

Right off the bat, this is a poor choice of links, that goes beyond the scope of just proving evolution.

While the link says 10 things predicting evolution, let's see if they also fit into Creationism(specifically old earth)

1. We should not find any early hominid fossils (such as Australopithicus, Ardipithecus, or Kenyanthropus) in Australia, North America, South America, Antarctica, Siberia, or on any oceanic islands removed from Africa.

Don't see how that specifically predicts evolution, while ruling out Progressive Creationism(PC).

2. No birds will have mammary glands or hair.

same as above. Special creation and PC believe God created birds different from mammals.

3. No mammals will have feathers (even though feathers are an excellent means of insulation).

Same as 2.

4. No fish or amphibians will have differentiated or cusped teeth, since these are only characteristics of mammals.

Ok, then if this is true, evolution is proved false.
The sheepshead fish has human teeth

5. We should never find mammalian or bird fossils in or before Devonian deposits, before reptiles had diverged from the amphibian tetrapod line. This excludes Precambrian, Cambrian, Ordovician, and
Silurian deposits, encompassing 92% of the earth's geological history.

If birds and mammals were created after tetrapods, then this still wouldn't prove evolution.

6. We will never find a living or fossilized true chimera such as Pegasus, Mermaid or Griffin.

How would that prove evolution. It just means we would have no evidence one existed.

7. We will never find birds with both wings and arms, since the evolution of wings necessarily means the loss of arms.

God could have created birds with wings, and no arms. Doesn't prove evolution.

8. No marine mammal (such as dolphins, porpoises and whales) will have gills despite the fact that gills would be very beneficial.

Marine mammals were created as mammals, not fish. Dolphins, porpoises and whales do quite well without gills.

9. No reptile or mammal will have eyes without retinal blind spots. This is because poor design cannot be "fixed" by evolutionary processes, even if correcting the problem would be beneficial for the organism. The only "fixing" that is allowed evolutionarily is relatively minor modification of what already exists.

Now he thinks he can design a better eye than God.

10. All living things on Earth will share the same nucleic acid genetic material.

Again, this does not prove evolution. It proves evolution is a possibility. But not while disproving creation. If God used the same chemicals to create all life, then at least some of the same genetic material would be in all life on earth.

So, not one of those predictions would prove evolution. And by the author's admission, number 4 disproves evolution.

Also from the blog:

Creationists will undoubtedly respond that many of these things are simple evidence of a common designer. In fact, if true, that designer is not very competent.

Now God is incompetent. How is this not Anti-God?

Consider prediction 10 in relation to the recently well-publicized swine flu. That flu jumped from pigs to humans. That is only possible because pigs and humans share the same genetic code. So a truly competent designer would have, presumably, used different genetic codes in pigs and humans in order to prevent the possibility of such an event from taking place. Note that this is NOT explained by the "Fall of Man" since the genetic codes in humans and pigs can't have changed since the [mythical] Garden of Eden.

Not only is the author presuming the way God should have designed pigs and humans, but he also insults Christians who believe scripture, by calling the Garden of Eden "mythical".

There are many other predictions made by evolution.

There are NONE made by creationism.

Unless, of course, some creationist can come up with a similar set of predictions which, if not found to be true, would falsify their beliefs.

In Hugh Ross' book More Than A Theory, Ross does make predictions for his creation theory. I realize this blog was written before Ross published that book.

So, at best this thread is an outdated joke, that does nothing to prove evolution. But it does a good job of insulting Creationism, and its Creator.

I would not normally have a problem with this blog being used in a forum open for debate, which wasn't a reference only thread. But Neo insisted on a evolution only reference thread.

I glanced at the link you provided and you seem to misunderstand what the author is trying to say. These predictions does not prove evolution, on the contrary if they turn out to be true like a mammal in the devonian period, then evolution is disapproved. Or a whale with Gills, that would disapprove evolution, or at least challenge it substantially.