Evidence for God from Science

I would seldom see the word except as used in a generally disparaging
way by people in a forum such as this one.

It seems to go with secularist / atheist, and carties with it implications
of an anti-god stance, based on bad science.

What do others see in the word?

I see an evolutionist simply as someone who believes in evolution. But I've seen it defined in other ways, by others.

Some use it as a derogatory term meaning, "a Godless person who believes in evolution, without God".

I try not to use the term myself, so I'd defer to the person using it, to define it for the sake of the conversation.

Audie,

As I said before, some see only two possible beliefs:

1) God created.

2) life came about without God, and then evolved.

Some don't see, or don't want to see that belief in evolution and God is possible.

Audie wrote:I would seldom see the word except as used in a generally disparaging
way by people in a forum such as this one.

It seems to go with secularist / atheist, and carties with it implications
of an anti-god stance, based on bad science.

What do others see in the word?

It is just someone who believes or accepts the theory of evolution.I guess you might could call it a nickname kinda but it is not really meant in a bad way like you may think.What other term should we use?I mean we are known as "Creationists"

Evolution is Nothing more than a theory which has won wide acceptance among the knowitalls nowadays. Evolution is like phrenology or lamarkism or aryanism which has won the lottery of common "wisdom".

Even dumb Christians who believe in evolution are better off than their dumber mates who think Genesis is true. Right?

(That goes for dumb atheists too. Beleive in the Accepted Mantra and you are OK. Proof is superfluous.)

crackpot wrote:Evolution is Nothing more than a theory which has won wide acceptance among the knowitalls nowadays. Evolution is like phrenology or lamarkism or aryanism which has won the lottery of common "wisdom".

Even dumb Christians who believe in evolution are better off than their dumber mates who think Genesis is true. Right?

(That goes for dumb atheists too. Beleive in the Accepted Mantra and you are OK. Proof is superfluous.)

I know about a book you might want to read written by an atheist who once accepted the theory of evolution but oneday on his way to work as he was driving he suddenly realized how weak the evidence for evolution really is.Now he still wants to accept evolution but knows that the evidence is weak and just states the obvious.
The book is called "Evolution : A case of stating the obvious" written by Derek Phillip Hough.

crackpot -- as a creationist / a believer in Genesis. I know how unpopular that position is. Higher Education has been ridiculing anyone who takes a stand for Bible / creation. We're used to it. That does not make it any less true, though.
However, that does Not make Christians dumb. That means we simply take a different stand.

Evolution is taking God Out Of the picture. And, yes, there is a belief called Theistic Evolution. A lot of us simply don't buy into it.

Well, I'm an 'evolutionist'. I believe that life began as a single self-replicating kind of chemical and developed by mutation, reprouction and selection into the millions of different forms that populated the world in the past, and populate it today. I believe that this is wholly compatible with the bible, the teachings of the Catholic Church, and involves the intimate and continuous involvement of God. I believe that there is adequate evidence, both scientific and theological, to justify this belief as the best explanation of the development of life so far formulated, but, as a scientist and an evolutionist, am prepared to accept that the theory is open to modification, or even abandonment, should new evidence be adduced to discredit it.

I do not think people who disagree with me are bad, dumb or ridiculous; I just think they're wrong.

abelcainsbrother wrote:I know about a book you might want to read written by an atheist who once accepted the theory of evolution...bla bla bla...

I know of an even dumber book you may want to read! Many smart people blindly assume it is true without ever having read it! (What's even more amazing is most people have NEVER seen a copy!)

The Origin of Species by some dead guy named Charles Darwin.

crackpot wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:I know about a book you might want to read written by an atheist who once accepted the theory of evolution...bla bla bla...

I know of an even dumber book you may want to read! Many smart people blindly assume it is true without ever having read it! (What's even more amazing is most people have NEVER seen a copy!)

The Origin of Species by some dead guy named Charles Darwin.

I have read it,but it has been awhile.I read it when I was researching evolution.Reading it is one of the reasons I reject evolution.Evolution has been weakened and watered down since Darwin to where now evolutionists deny evolution teaches one kind of life evolves into another kind of life,evolutionists now deny this eventhough it is what got this whole evolution thing started really. Darwin clearly assumed that eventually over time life would evolve from one kind of creature to another totally different kind of creature.

I understand that Darwin almost gave up on publishing it,but was pushed by friends,etc to do it and one even threatened to publish it themselves and beat him to the punch if he did'nt. But I think Darwin was greatly troubled about how his theory would not only be recieved, but proved also,and it never has been and alot of the things Darwin said would make this theory false were ignored when they did not find or discover what he said they should find.They totally ignored what he said would make this theory false in order to keep pushing it up the hill.

Did you know that a young Charles Darwin went out on fossil excavations with Willam Buckland?Oxford's very first Geology professor and who discovered the very first dinosaur?Well he was a Gap Theory creationist and Christian theologian.This is probably how Darwin knew the fossils that had been found so far showed no transition.William Buckland rejected early evolutionary ideas that were around back then.He believed there was a former world that had existed before and that is how he looked at the fossils.And by examining the fossilzed gut of Dinosaurs he knew the former world was a dangerous place to live which is why he coined the phrase "Satan's creatures" for them. He thought they were giant lizards.

I'm sorry crackpot thinks that "On the Origin of Species" is a dumb book. I disagree. The book describes in enormous breadth and depth some of the similarities and relationships between living and extinct organisms. From this mass of evidence, Darwin suggests that one coherent explanation for these observations is that they were descended in normal reproductive terms from a common ancestor, gradually modified so as to fit their environment as best they can. He suggests a mechanism by which this may have occurred ('natural selection', now often referred to as 'survival of the fittest'), and mentions a number of objections to his explanation which he admits could render it invalid if they could not be explained themselves. To describe his book as "dumb", when it is a model of how scientific literature should be written and new hypotheses presented, is somewhat facile, I think. Perhaps Crackpot would care to explain why he thinks "On the Origin of Species" is "dumb".

Abelcainsbrother says something which isn't true at all. "Evolution has been weakened and watered down since Darwin to where now evolutionists deny evolution teaches one kind of life evolves into another kind of life; evolutionists now deny this even though it is what got this whole evolution thing started really." No. The whole principle of evolution is that "one kind of life evolves into another kind of life" and evolutionists do not deny it at all. I cannot imagine how abelcainsbrother can have misunderstood the situation so grossly. Perhaps he will let us know.

This is also untrue: "A lot of the things Darwin said would make this theory false were ignored when they did not find or discover what he said they should find. They totally ignored what he said would make this theory false in order to keep pushing it up the hill." Every one of Darwin's own objections to his theory has been explored extensively, and as a result so modifications to his ideas have become mainstream. Some aspects of some of the objections remain unexplained, but they are certainly not ignored.

Before my last comment, Crotchet wrote: "Evolution is taking God Out Of the picture. And, yes, there is a belief called Theistic Evolution. A lot of us simply don't buy into it." Well, of course, if you define the word 'Evolution' as atheistic, then Theistic Evolution would be a contradiction in terms. But such a definition is personal to Crotchet. I do not define Evolution in those terms, and consider Theistic Evolution a better explanation for God's creative activity than an other so far. It's OK not to "buy into it", but it would be good if Crotchet could express what it is that she does "buy into."

hughfarey wrote:I'm sorry crackpot thinks that "On the Origin of Species" is a dumb book. I disagree. The book describes in enormous breadth and depth some of the similarities and relationships between living and extinct organisms. From this mass of evidence, Darwin suggests that one coherent explanation for these observations is that they were descended in normal reproductive terms from a common ancestor, gradually modified so as to fit their environment as best they can. He suggests a mechanism by which this may have occurred ('natural selection', now often referred to as 'survival of the fittest'), and mentions a number of objections to his explanation which he admits could render it invalid if they could not be explained themselves. To describe his book as "dumb", when it is a model of how scientific literature should be written and new hypotheses presented, is somewhat facile, I think. Perhaps Crackpot would care to explain why he thinks "On the Origin of Species" is "dumb".

Abelcainsbrother says something which isn't true at all. "Evolution has been weakened and watered down since Darwin to where now evolutionists deny evolution teaches one kind of life evolves into another kind of life; evolutionists now deny this even though it is what got this whole evolution thing started really." No. The whole principle of evolution is that "one kind of life evolves into another kind of life" and evolutionists do not deny it at all. I cannot imagine how abelcainsbrother can have misunderstood the situation so grossly. Perhaps he will let us know.

This is also untrue: "A lot of the things Darwin said would make this theory false were ignored when they did not find or discover what he said they should find. They totally ignored what he said would make this theory false in order to keep pushing it up the hill." Every one of Darwin's own objections to his theory has been explored extensively, and as a result so modifications to his ideas have become mainstream. Some aspects of some of the objections remain unexplained, but they are certainly not ignored.

Before my last comment, Crotchet wrote: "Evolution is taking God Out Of the picture. And, yes, there is a belief called Theistic Evolution. A lot of us simply don't buy into it." Well, of course, if you define the word 'Evolution' as atheistic, then Theistic Evolution would be a contradiction in terms. But such a definition is personal to Crotchet. I do not define Evolution in those terms, and consider Theistic Evolution a better explanation for God's creative activity than an other so far. It's OK not to "buy into it", but it would be good if Crotchet could express what it is that she does "buy into."

Really? So one kind of life does evolve over time into a totally different kind of creature? I guess some evolutionists believe it and others don't. I thought evolution today is just change over time.Darwin acknowledged that the fossils found at the time showed no transition but he insisted that many transitional fossils would be found and if they were'nt it would mean his theory was wrong. Not one transitional fossil has been found still today. Every fossil found is a fully formed creature that shows no transition at all from trilobites to dinosaurs there is no transition. But this did not stop scientists instead they made them into transitional fossils anyway.

abelcainsbrother wrote: So one kind of life does evolve over time into a totally different kind of creature? I guess some evolutionists believe it and others don't. I thought evolution today is just change over time.Darwin acknowledged that the fossils found at the time showed no transition but he insisted that many transitional fossils would be found and if they were'nt it would mean his theory was wrong. Not one transitional fossil has been found still today. Every fossil found is a fully formed creature that shows no transition at all from trilobites to dinosaurs there is no transition. But this did not stop scientists instead they made them into transitional fossils anyway.

I'm so sorry, abelcainsbrother, but almost none of this is true.

"one kind of life does evolve over time into a totally different kind of creature?" Not exactly. One species divides into two species which are almost exactly the same. It is the accumulation of tiny differences which eventually enable us to say, for example, that whales and hippos are related, and that they share a common ancestor. Evolutionists do not believe that hippos evolved into whales. It may be this misunderstanding that led to your next mistake...

"I guess some evolutionists believe it and others don't." Not exactly. All evolutionists believe in the process outlined above.

"Darwin acknowledged that the fossils found at the time showed no transition but he insisted that many transitional fossils would be found and if they weren't it would mean his theory was wrong." That's true!

"Not one transitional fossil has been found still today." That's completely false.

"Every fossil found is a fully formed creature that shows no transition at all from trilobites to dinosaurs there is no transition." Every fossil found is indeed a fully formed creature, which fitted its lifestyle as best it could. Animals are not like half-made sculptures in an artist's studio. They have to have lived sufficiently well to reproduce in order to grow enough to leave a fossil when they died, and usually to communicate their genes to the next generation. However, when we look at major evolutionary developments, such as the transition from aquatic to terrestrial vertebrates, or the development of feathered birds, then thousands of transitional forms have been discovered, sufficient to demonstrate a gradual progression of changed features over time, even from the time of the trilobites to the time of the dinosaurs (although dinosaurs are not direct descendants of trilobites).

A question, do we see any more transitions taking place Now? A response would Probably be that the process takes too long for a persons' life span to witness it. The world of fossils -- up to a point, yes. But lots of us Still don't buy into the concept of animals changing from one type to another. The concept of transition from water to land. WHY would 'nature' decide that a transition was Necessary In the first place? Why not just have creatures stay in the water? Why Have land creatures. And, then again, Where did the water come From that the aquatic life was living in? To Me, there are just too many unanswered questions. And Sure -- all of the water and land and animals, and people Are here. But to have all of this Start in the first place by happenstance -- we have beautiful cars, airplanes, boats, etc. Great designs. But Someone Designed them. Parts and pieces didn't just 'get together' and 'over time' a car, boat, etc. appeared. And a car won't transition into a tractor or an airplane. But they Do have parts in common, engines, tires, etc. But we Can tell the difference in those three. They are also non-living things. Not capable of reproduction. But they all had a Designer.
We just had kittens born -- we can tell by their coloring who their dad is. Put a black and yellow cat together and get an assortment of colors -- but you'll never get a half-something that will survive. They won't somehow produce a puppy.

There was an article on Internet about a group of college students who pulled a prank that was later discovered - they had taken bones from various skeletons / put them together and claimed to have found a transitional fossil. That information leads a person to question other 'finds' that may not be what they Appear to be -- especially those who are Trying to find transition fossils.