Evidence for God from Science

When discussing plate tectonics,3 the media tends to focus on the negative effects of our planet’s mobile plates. We hear about volcanic activity that shuts down European flight zones, tsunamis that devastate whole populations, and of course earthquakes, which have caused major devastations and cost many people their lives in Haiti, China, and Chile. How can earthquakes be good? What else does the plate cycle do?

First, plate tectonics, through the rotation of the mantle below, contributes to the magnetic field which surrounds our planet, keeping the atmosphere in and warding off deadly cosmic rays from the sun, which would destroy life if they reached the planet. Second, plate tectonic movement involves the solid plates being forced down into the liquid mantle and melting in some places, while in other places the plates separate and allow hot magma to rise and solidify. This recycling uses up heat produced by the interior radiation of the earth. This process is so effective that it uses up almost 90% of the heat produced by the Earth. In comparison, on Venus, the lack of plate tectonics means that the same heat produced by the core does not get recycled, and the pressure and heat build up so high that the distinction between mantle and crust gets lost––the whole planet goes molten. The rest of the time, surface temperatures average around 500 degrees Celsius. There are many other advantages to plate tectonics, including stabilizing atmospheric carbon dioxide, maintaining temperatures for liquid surface water, renewing nutrients in the soil, and keeping a distinction between ocean and continent. Life, and certainly human life in this world, simply does not have a chance without plate tectonics. I do not want to understate the great human and animal cost associated with earthquakes, volcanoes, and tsunamis, but without plate tectonics, there would be no life at all. I would affirm that this world’s plate tectonics are part of God’s very good creation.

What about pain? If any of us were given the choice to live without pain, most of us would say an enthusiastic “yes please!” Until, that is, we saw what a life without pain really looks like. In our mind’s eye we would imagine striding untouched though hardship and peril, like a real-life Superman, able to conquer all the aches and pains that keep us from reaching our full potential. In reality, a painless life is a horror show. In reality, painlessness looks like leprosy.

Leprosy, also known as Hansen’s Disease, is a bacterial infection that invades the body’s pain nerves and ultimately destroys them, leaving the person with an inability to feel pain. That is, in fact, almost all that leprosy does. The subsequent damage that we associate with leprosy––fingers falling off, open wounds, and missing limbs––does not actually come from the bacteria themselves, but from the resulting painlessness. Patients burn themselves and do not pull back; they walk on broken limbs and do not notice. In the book The Gift of Pain, Paul Brand describes how in one African clinic, rats were coming in the night and feeding on patients fingers, and because they felt no pain, they slept on.4 Pain is a good thing, our ever-present protector, developed through an evolutionary process to help us live good lives. Now, this is not to say that pain never goes wild. It does, and with realities like chronic pain or torture, pain can become an enemy. But that does not undermine the fact that our ability to feel pain is a great gift; it just means that sometimes that gift becomes twisted in its expression. The solution is not to wish for a world with no pain, but for a world where pain is appropriately experienced.

Now let me insert one caveat here: in no way do I want to say that just because pain is “natural” that we have no responsibility to help relieve it. That is not what I am arguing. I would say that pain serves important purposes, which are needed for a good life. At the same time, we should look to the example of Jesus, who walked into pain-filled situations and brought healing, regardless of the cause of the suffering. It is our recognition of suffering in the other5 and our responsibility of stewardship to one another that must motivate our medical ethics.

- See more at: http://biologos.org/blogs/archive/how-c ... 66tSD.dpuf

Metacrock wrote:if evolution takes millions of years how co9uod it be determined in a lab"?

As for the origin of the universe, that is a matter quite separate from the origin of life in the same sense that it is separate from the science of auto mechanics.

It may also be that the nature of matter and energy is such that given a chance, it will spontaneously set about creating life.

Audie wrote:Post by Audie » Wed Apr 27, 2016 1:44 pm
The record very clearly shows that there has been a continuous process going on for many millions of years, which in its divers details in all ways matches the explanation given originally by Darwin.

PaulSacramento wrote:From the Biologos website:

http://biologos.org/blogs/archive/how-c ... on-part-1/

Special Note:
I know that not everyone here believes in evolution or that God may have used this process, BUT if you are going to critique anything PLEASE critique what was WRITTEN and NOT what you THINK was written.

Audie wrote:The record very clearly shows that there has been a continuous process going on for many millions of years, which in its divers details in all ways matches the explanation given
originally by Darwin.

If not that, then what is to account for it?

One is not requited to "Doubt God" in order to doubt that all those who choose their various ways to read the bible are necessarily getting it right.

As for "starting the process" it may be that life itself had to be "jump started" in some simple form. It may also be that the nature of matter and energy is such that given a chance, it will spontaneously set about creating life. I think in general nobody believes a god is necessary to move clouds about, or form beaches just so.

As for the origin of the universe, that is a matter quite separate from the origin of life
in the same sense that it is separate from the science of auto mechanics.

As for "starting the process" it may be that life itself had to be "jump started" in some simple form. It may also be that the nature of matter and energy is such that given a chance, it will spontaneously set about creating life.

Philip wrote:

As for the origin of the universe, that is a matter quite separate from the origin of life in the same sense that it is separate from the science of auto mechanics.

The origin of life is entirely connected to the Cause/Originator of the universe, as 1) if precisely the things that came into existence did not, then no conditions or planet capable of supporting life could exist. 2) If the things that came into existence did not instantly begin functioning (in those first moments), you end up without a universe capable of producing such a planet as earth. 3) And most importantly, without the CAUSE of the universe, without Him, NOTHING exists, much less the conditions that could support, much less CREATE, life, would have been possible. So, blather along in fascination of the details of how species developed, etc., but to pretend these have nothing to do with the Original that made everything possible - well, that's silly. Remember, those key building blocks that life is dependent upon now, showed up, moments after coming into existence, fully functioning with marvelous design, so EVERYTHING now existing and alive is dependent upon those things. Now, that's not to say that understanding or trying to discern how things have changed and worked isn't a separate CONSIDERATION of FOCUS - but make no mistake - it's all entirely dependent of the origins of all things, and mostly, the Originator of them!

It may also be that the nature of matter and energy is such that given a chance, it will spontaneously set about creating life.

Yes, and bats might fly out of my wazoo! What you are speculating is that matter and energy created themselves and had unbelievable intelligence, which functioned (in the beginning and now) with the absolute opposite of what would be considered random or chaotic. This is speculation based upon New Agey stuff mixed in with whatever philosophy - it sure isn't science!

Right-arent you the one who thinks Rudyard Kipling is "New Age"?

Philip wrote:

Right-arent you the one who thinks Rudyard Kipling is "New Age"?

Huh?

audie
"East is east, west is west, never the twain shall meet"