Evidence for God from Science

I would like to understand why Christians should accept it as I do not see evolution in the bible and do not see enough scientific evidence to even believe life evolves and I have looked however realize my perspective can be wrong so I would like to know why Christians should accept it.

I'm looking for reasons I should accept it without you just saying I should.I do not at this time see how claiming God used evolution to create the life or "God did it" is good when it cannot even be shown or demonstrated by scientists who accept evolution life evolves,however if there is evidence life evolves then I might could believe God used evolution to create.

So here is your chance to change my and maybe others minds about theistic evolution.I think it is easier to just say God used evolution to create than to demand evidence and oppose evolution with creationism and then have to treat Genesis as not really right scientifically to accept it but here is your chance to change my mind hopefully with scientific evidence.

As a non-Christian i would ask you to consider the theory of evolution as a reasonable explanation for the variety of life on earth, not as something true or false. I can't present any new or ground breaking evidence but it seems to me the basic principles established in the late 19th and early 20th century; Darwin's observations on finches, Mendel's experiments with peas and Francis & Crick's work on DNA really united the life sciences with a common language. It was/is a scientific revolution of Newtonian proportions.

Proinsias, I'd be interested to know your views as to what the theory of evolution encompasses for you.

That is, are you more in line with a gradualism like Darwinian evolution, or something like punctuated equilibrium after Eldredge and Gould?

What mechanisms do you see as evidenced and/or necessary for life to have diversified as it has?

Proinsias wrote:As a non-Christian i would ask you to consider the theory of evolution as a reasonable explanation for the variety of life on earth, not as something true or false. I can't present any new or ground breaking evidence but it seems to me the basic principles established in the late 19th and early 20th century; Darwin's observations on finches, Mendel's experiments with peas and Francis & Crick's work on DNA really united the life sciences with a common language. It was/is a scientific revolution of Newtonian proportions.

Consider the theory of evolution as a reasonable explanation for the variety of life the problem first is that the theory of evolution has always been about life evolving.I don't think anybody denies the variety of life as we can see it but this is just the different kinds of life reproducing the same kind of life.Dogs are a great example of variety of life and variations of reproduction but dogs produce dogs with no evidence of them evolving into some other kind of life.It is the same with Darwin's finches they are still finches and no signs of evolving. I'm looking for evidence life evolves and haven't found any.Dogs were bread from wolves long before Darwin so animal breeders were already aware of variations in reproduction and they can even breed for specific traits but your still going to have a dog and I do not understand how this became evidence for the theory life evolves.
What to you convinces you life evolves,what have I overlooked?

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Proinsias wrote:As a non-Christian i would ask you to consider the theory of evolution as a reasonable explanation for the variety of life on earth, not as something true or false. I can't present any new or ground breaking evidence but it seems to me the basic principles established in the late 19th and early 20th century; Darwin's observations on finches, Mendel's experiments with peas and Francis & Crick's work on DNA really united the life sciences with a common language. It was/is a scientific revolution of Newtonian proportions.

Consider the theory of evolution as a reasonable explanation for the variety of life the problem first is that the theory of evolution has always been about life evolving.I don't think anybody denies the variety of life as we can see it but this is just the different kinds of life reproducing the same kind of life.Dogs are a great example of variety of life and variations of reproduction but dogs produce dogs with no evidence of them evolving into some other kind of life.It is the same with Darwin's finches they are still finches and no signs of evolving. I'm looking for evidence life evolves and haven't found any.Dogs were bread from wolves long before Darwin so animal breeders were already aware of variations in reproduction and they can even breed for specific traits but your still going to have a dog and I do not understand how this became evidence for the theory life evolves.
What to you convinces you life evolves,what have I overlooked?

How about Hyena's and Cats, they are the same "kind" but cannot breed with each other, the have drifted so far apart genetically (which isn't much on the genetic scale) that there is no possibility of fertilisation, they have become a totally seperate animal. Or another example is large cats compared to domesticated cats, they can no longer fertilise each other (as far as I am aware) they are now a seperate species, totally distinct from each other, physically and genetically.

Fun fact hyenas purr.

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Proinsias wrote:As a non-Christian i would ask you to consider the theory of evolution as a reasonable explanation for the variety of life on earth, not as something true or false. I can't present any new or ground breaking evidence but it seems to me the basic principles established in the late 19th and early 20th century; Darwin's observations on finches, Mendel's experiments with peas and Francis & Crick's work on DNA really united the life sciences with a common language. It was/is a scientific revolution of Newtonian proportions.

Consider the theory of evolution as a reasonable explanation for the variety of life the problem first is that the theory of evolution has always been about life evolving.I don't think anybody denies the variety of life as we can see it but this is just the different kinds of life reproducing the same kind of life.Dogs are a great example of variety of life and variations of reproduction but dogs produce dogs with no evidence of them evolving into some other kind of life.It is the same with Darwin's finches they are still finches and no signs of evolving. I'm looking for evidence life evolves and haven't found any.Dogs were bread from wolves long before Darwin so animal breeders were already aware of variations in reproduction and they can even breed for specific traits but your still going to have a dog and I do not understand how this became evidence for the theory life evolves.
What to you convinces you life evolves,what have I overlooked?

How about Hyena's and Cats, they are the same "kind" but cannot breed with each other, the have drifted so far apart genetically (which isn't much on the genetic scale) that there is no possibility of fertilisation, they have become a totally seperate animal. Or another example is large cats compared to domesticated cats, they can no longer fertilise each other (as far as I am aware) they are now a seperate species, totally distinct from each other, physically and genetically.

Fun fact hyenas purr.

Are you denying cats produce cats and hyenas produce hyenas?What gave you the idea they could breed?I'd never think that they could.

I don't have access to my computer with all of my saved links.But I need to find the link on talk origins that says you cannot say life has evolved because it can no longer breed because there are many examples of life that can still breed even though it is believed to have evolved.Keep this in mind when examining life and trying to say this life evolved because it can no longer breed.

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Proinsias wrote:As a non-Christian i would ask you to consider the theory of evolution as a reasonable explanation for the variety of life on earth, not as something true or false. I can't present any new or ground breaking evidence but it seems to me the basic principles established in the late 19th and early 20th century; Darwin's observations on finches, Mendel's experiments with peas and Francis & Crick's work on DNA really united the life sciences with a common language. It was/is a scientific revolution of Newtonian proportions.

Consider the theory of evolution as a reasonable explanation for the variety of life the problem first is that the theory of evolution has always been about life evolving.I don't think anybody denies the variety of life as we can see it but this is just the different kinds of life reproducing the same kind of life.Dogs are a great example of variety of life and variations of reproduction but dogs produce dogs with no evidence of them evolving into some other kind of life.It is the same with Darwin's finches they are still finches and no signs of evolving. I'm looking for evidence life evolves and haven't found any.Dogs were bread from wolves long before Darwin so animal breeders were already aware of variations in reproduction and they can even breed for specific traits but your still going to have a dog and I do not understand how this became evidence for the theory life evolves.
What to you convinces you life evolves,what have I overlooked?

How about Hyena's and Cats, they are the same "kind" but cannot breed with each other, the have drifted so far apart genetically (which isn't much on the genetic scale) that there is no possibility of fertilisation, they have become a totally seperate animal. Or another example is large cats compared to domesticated cats, they can no longer fertilise each other (as far as I am aware) they are now a seperate species, totally distinct from each other, physically and genetically.

Fun fact hyenas purr.

Are you denying cats produce cats and hyenas produce hyenas?What gave you the idea they could breed?I'd never think that they could.

A hyena is the same family as a cat, they have a common ancestor. Just like dogs and wolves, exceot that dogs and wolves are still close enough genetically so they are able to breed.

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Proinsias wrote:As a non-Christian i would ask you to consider the theory of evolution as a reasonable explanation for the variety of life on earth, not as something true or false. I can't present any new or ground breaking evidence but it seems to me the basic principles established in the late 19th and early 20th century; Darwin's observations on finches, Mendel's experiments with peas and Francis & Crick's work on DNA really united the life sciences with a common language. It was/is a scientific revolution of Newtonian proportions.

Consider the theory of evolution as a reasonable explanation for the variety of life the problem first is that the theory of evolution has always been about life evolving.I don't think anybody denies the variety of life as we can see it but this is just the different kinds of life reproducing the same kind of life.Dogs are a great example of variety of life and variations of reproduction but dogs produce dogs with no evidence of them evolving into some other kind of life.It is the same with Darwin's finches they are still finches and no signs of evolving. I'm looking for evidence life evolves and haven't found any.Dogs were bread from wolves long before Darwin so animal breeders were already aware of variations in reproduction and they can even breed for specific traits but your still going to have a dog and I do not understand how this became evidence for the theory life evolves.
What to you convinces you life evolves,what have I overlooked?

How about Hyena's and Cats, they are the same "kind" but cannot breed with each other, the have drifted so far apart genetically (which isn't much on the genetic scale) that there is no possibility of fertilisation, they have become a totally seperate animal. Or another example is large cats compared to domesticated cats, they can no longer fertilise each other (as far as I am aware) they are now a seperate species, totally distinct from each other, physically and genetically.

Fun fact hyenas purr.

Are you denying cats produce cats and hyenas produce hyenas?What gave you the idea they could breed?I'd never think that they could.

A hyena is the same family as a cat, they have a common ancestor. Just like dogs and wolves, exceot that dogs and wolves are still close enough genetically so they are able to breed.

I know science teaches that hyenas are in the same family as cats but how do you know it is true?They have looked at it believing life evolves but have skipped over the evidence so far as I can tell.How do you know the common ancestor evolved to be hyenas and cats?

abelcainsbrother wrote:
I know science teaches that hyenas are in the same family as cats but how do you know it is true?They have looked at it believing life evolves but have skipped over the evidence so far as I can tell.How do you know the common ancestor evolved to be hyenas and cats?

Because we study their genetic sequence and we can compare that against examples we know like wolves and dogs, we can also look at fossils and we see a progression from a common ancestor to what we see today, we can also make predictions for finding fossils which prove to be accurate. There are other methods also, but I am not a biologist, Proinsias probably knows much more than myself.

Is a natural evolving required to have a common ancestor?

For example, if God made Eve from Adam's side, then is Adam Eve's ancestor?
Or would Eve needed to have specifically evolved from Adam's physical substance...

Just wondering what you all might think, Atheists included, hypothetically speaking.

Kurieuo wrote:Is a natural evolving required to have a common ancestor?

For example, if God made Eve from Adam's side, then is Adam Eve's ancestor?
Or would Eve needed to have specifically evolved from Adam's physical substance...

Just wondering what you all might think, Atheists included, hypothetically speaking.

I think the Adam and Eve story is just using poetic language to describe how when a man and woman come together that they are complete. I don't read it literally as what happened.

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:
I know science teaches that hyenas are in the same family as cats but how do you know it is true?They have looked at it believing life evolves but have skipped over the evidence so far as I can tell.How do you know the common ancestor evolved to be hyenas and cats?

Because we study their genetic sequence and we can compare that against examples we know like wolves and dogs, we can also look at fossils and we see a progression from a common ancestor to what we see today, we can also make predictions for finding fossils which prove to be accurate. There are other methods also, but I am not a biologist, Proinsias probably knows much more than myself.

Yes I've looked into that and really tried to look for evidence for those things and realized I'd be believing them over what the evidence seems to show and I said I already believe the bible by faith and don't need another something to put my faith in,but perhaps I overlooked something.I try to look for evidence for what I accept as truth or not and I tend to not believe somebody if I must believe their interpretation without good reasons or evidence.Thanks for your responses. It seems to me that the only ones who really seem to know life evolves are scientists and that they believe it despite the reality around us that nobody but them can see for sure and I must believe them despite reality around me that does not show it. Seems to me everybody could observe or see evidence that life evolves if it really happens but we can't.

I knew this was a waste of time. :/

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:Is a natural evolving required to have a common ancestor?

For example, if God made Eve from Adam's side, then is Adam Eve's ancestor?
Or would Eve needed to have specifically evolved from Adam's physical substance...

Just wondering what you all might think, Atheists included, hypothetically speaking.

I think the Adam and Eve story is just using poetic language to describe how when a man and woman come together that they are complete. I don't read it literally as what happened.

That wasn't my question.

Please clear your mind of any sort of argument being made.
I just want your take (and Proinsias' or others) on what "common ancestry" entails.

Let me put the question another way.
If God takes some homo sapien and uses that -- its biological code and the like -- when forming modern humans...
and then God takes that same homo sapien and uses that when forming chimpanzees...

Do we humans share the same ancestor with chimps,
or does common ancestry necessitate that human and chimps naturally evolved?