There is more then enough evidence to prove God exists.

[Serenity7855]

Please don't derail threads on topics you know little about.

Lets work with facts, not your biased opinion.

IAP - IAP Statement on the Teaching of Evolution

We agree that the following evidence-based facts about the origins and evolution of the Earth and of life on this planet have been established by numerous observations and independently derived experimental results from a multitude of scientific disciplines. Even if there are still many open questions about the precise details of evolutionary change, scientific evidence has never contradicted these results:
•In a universe that has evolved towards its present configuration for some 11 to 15 billion years, our Earth formed approximately 4.5 billion years ago.
•Since its formation, the Earth – its geology and its environments – has changed under the effect of numerous physical and chemical forces and continues to do so.
•Life appeared on Earth at least 2.5 billion years ago. The evolution, soon after, of photosynthetic organisms enabled, from at least 2 billion years ago, the slow transformation of the atmosphere to one containing substantial quantities of oxygen. In addition to the release of the oxygen that we breathe, the process of photosynthesis is the ultimate source of fixed energy and food upon which human life on the planet depends.
•Since its first appearance on Earth, life has taken many forms, all of which continue to evolve, in ways which palaeontology and the modern biological and biochemical sciences are describing and independently confirming with increasing precision. Commonalities in the structure of the genetic code of all organisms living today, including humans, clearly indicate their common primordial origin




Evolution is a Fact and a Theory

Oh dear, someone else you are becoming hostile with just because he disagrees with you. This poster is right. Nobody has witnessed the transition between one species to another. That is why evolutions still bares the name of a "Theory"

 

[Serenity7855]

You speak of evolution as if its some form of shape shifting power granted in fables. You really don't have any idea what evolution says do you? If you do shame on you for pushing forth such a false concept of it AKA lying. If you don't then it is best not to speak on things you don't know about. Either way, it looks bad on you.

I think that your post is not only hostile but it is also completely wrong. It does not look bad on him as he is being truthful

 

[Bunyip]

Oh dear, someone else you are becoming hostile with just because he disagrees with you. This poster is right. Nobody has witnessed the transition between one species to another. That is why evolutions still bares the name of a "Theory"

No one has witnessed such a transition, because the Theory of Evolution does not claim it to be possible. EVOLUTION HAPPENS TO SPECIES, NOT INDIVIDUALS.

Evolution does not bear the name of theory either - evolution is a proven fact. The Theory of Evolution explains the fact.

Theories explain the facts, they are ABOVE fact, not inferior to it.

All these comments and you still have yet to grasp even the most basic principles.

As to your false claim that nobody has witnessed one species transition into another - just google 'observed instances of speciation', it has been observed dozens of times - going back more than a century.

 

[Serenity7855]

Being 'steeped in atheism' doesn't change the fact that an animal changing into another form would be contrary to evolutionary theory, not proof of it.

Do try to get past simply complaining about the nasty atheists all the time and see if you can actually engage on point.

Evolution happens to species, not individuals.

Evolution occurs between groups of organisms or gene pools. We have not witnessed a transition between two different species because of the time required for it to happen. We have witnessed variation of species, as Darwin called it.

Please, the topic is not me.

 

[Agnostic75]

If I could take any reasonable man, from off the street, who was totally impartial and without mindless bigotry, void of the brain washing techniques of Atheists and open minded enough to learn, I could satisfy his mind, using the scientific knowledge that we currently have, that it is more likely for their to be a God, then not.

I refer you to my post 3760 in a thread at http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...le-rational-proof-god-exists-existed-376.html.

That post shows that the National Academy of Science, which is the most prestigious scientific organization in the U.S., says that science cannot reasonably prove, or disprove the existence of God, and that even some Christians disagree with your claim, including George Lemaitre, who was a Roman Catholic physicist, and was one of the founders of the Big Bang theory.

The National Academy of Science, and George Lemaitre, are much better scientific sources than William Lane Craig is.

Nobody has witnessed the transition between one species to another. That is why evolution still bares the name of a "Theory."

You previously said that you accept common descent. Have you changed your mind? Consider the following from the National Academies of Science:

Evolution Resources from the National Academies

Is Evolution a Theory or a Fact?

It is both. But that answer requires looking more deeply at the meanings of the words "theory" and "fact."

In everyday usage, "theory" often refers to a hunch or a speculation. When people say, "I have a theory about why that happened," they are often drawing a conclusion based on fragmentary or inconclusive evidence.

The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence.

Many scientific theories are so well-established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics). Like these other foundational scientific theories, the theory of evolution is supported by so many observations and confirming experiments that scientists are confident that the basic components of the theory will not be overturned by new evidence. However, like all scientific theories, the theory of evolution is subject to continuing refinement as new areas of science emerge or as new technologies enable observations and experiments that were not possible previously.

One of the most useful properties of scientific theories is that they can be used to make predictions about natural events or phenomena that have not yet been observed. For example, the theory of gravitation predicted the behavior of objects on the moon and other planets long before the activities of spacecraft and astronauts confirmed them. The evolutionary biologists who discovered Tiktaalik predicted that they would find fossils intermediate between fish and limbed terrestrial animals in sediments that were about 375 million years old. Their discovery confirmed the prediction made on the basis of evolutionary theory. In turn, confirmation of a prediction increases confidence in that theory.

In science, a "fact" typically refers to an observation, measurement, or other form of evidence that can be expected to occur the same way under similar circumstances. However, scientists also use the term "fact" to refer to a scientific explanation that has been tested and confirmed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing it or looking for additional examples. In that respect, the past and continuing occurrence of evolution is a scientific fact. Because the evidence supporting it is so strong, scientists no longer question whether biological evolution has occurred and is continuing to occur. Instead, they investigate the mechanisms of evolution, how rapidly evolution can take place, and related questions.

In addition, consider the following from Wikipedia:

While details of macroevolution are continuously studied by the scientific community, the overall theory behind macroevolution (i.e. common descent) has been overwhelmingly consistent with empirical data. Predictions of empirical data from the theory of common descent have been so consistent that biologists often refer to it as the "fact of evolution".

Further, consider the following:

Beliefs of the U.S. public about evolution and creation

According to Newsweek in 1987:

"By one count there are some 700 scientists with respectable academic credentials (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) who give credence to creation-science..."

That would make the support for creation science among those branches of science who deal with the earth and its life forms to be about 0.14%."

That means that 99.86% of experts in the U.S. accept common descent, which would include the majority of Christian experts.

So, according to the vast majority of experts, evolution is a virtual fact, which means that it is very probably true, and that there are not any good scientific reasons to reject it.

Your comment "Nobody has witnessed the transition between one species to another" is not an adequate rejection of common descent, and is an absurd argument that would be rejected by most experts, and even by the majority of Christian experts.

Anyone who thinks that they know enough about biology to adequately discredit common descent needs to thoroughly critique Dr. Douglas Theobald's comprehensive article on common descent at 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent.

William Lane Craig is widely known for appealing to authority, which I do not object to, and which I sometimes do myself, but he questions common descent even though he admits that he is an amateur in biology. That means that regarding the issue of common descent, Craig is a hypocrite.

 

[Agnostic75]

No animal has been observed to change into a completely different animal before our own eyes.

Are you proposing that Adam and Eve were the first humans, and did not have any genetic predecessors?

According to the majority of experts, evolution has been observed. Consider the following:

Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution

Biologists define evolution as a change in the gene pool of a population over time. One example is insects developing a resistance to pesticides over the period of a few years. Even most Creationists recognize that evolution at this level is a fact. What they don't appreciate is that this rate of evolution is all that is required to produce the diversity of all living things from a common ancestor.

The origin of new species by evolution has also been observed, both in the laboratory and in the wild. See, for example, (Weinberg, J.R., V.R. Starczak, and D. Jorg, 1992, "Evidence for rapid speciation following a founder event in the laboratory." Evolution 46: 1214-1220). The "Observed Instances of Speciation" at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html.......gives several additional examples.

Even without these direct observations, it would be wrong to say that evolution hasn't been observed. Evidence isn't limited to seeing something happen before your eyes. Evolution makes predictions about what we would expect to see in the fossil record, comparative anatomy, genetic sequences, geographical distribution of species, etc., and these predictions have been verified many times over. The number of observations supporting evolution is overwhelming.

What hasn't been observed is one animal abruptly changing into a radically different one, such as a frog changing into a cow. This is not a problem for evolution because evolution doesn't propose occurrences even remotely like that. In fact, if we ever observed a frog turn into a cow, it would be very strong evidence against evolution.

The evolution you are reffering to occurs in significantly less time than millions of years. That's not enough to make the jump that everything works that way.

Are you implying that the earth is young?

Jerry Coyne, Ph.D., biology, is a well-known, and distinguished biologist, and college professor. He has an article at
There’s plenty of time for evolution « Why Evolution Is True that shows that there has been enough time for evolution to occur. Would you like to critique the article?

Do you believe that a global flood occurred?

 

[Fredcow9]

Please don't derail threads on topics you know little about.

Lets work with facts, not your biased opinion.

IAP - IAP Statement on the Teaching of Evolution

We agree that the following evidence-based facts about the origins and evolution of the Earth and of life on this planet have been established by numerous observations and independently derived experimental results from a multitude of scientific disciplines. Even if there are still many open questions about the precise details of evolutionary change, scientific evidence has never contradicted these results:
•In a universe that has evolved towards its present configuration for some 11 to 15 billion years, our Earth formed approximately 4.5 billion years ago.
•Since its formation, the Earth – its geology and its environments – has changed under the effect of numerous physical and chemical forces and continues to do so.
•Life appeared on Earth at least 2.5 billion years ago. The evolution, soon after, of photosynthetic organisms enabled, from at least 2 billion years ago, the slow transformation of the atmosphere to one containing substantial quantities of oxygen. In addition to the release of the oxygen that we breathe, the process of photosynthesis is the ultimate source of fixed energy and food upon which human life on the planet depends.
•Since its first appearance on Earth, life has taken many forms, all of which continue to evolve, in ways which palaeontology and the modern biological and biochemical sciences are describing and independently confirming with increasing precision. Commonalities in the structure of the genetic code of all organisms living today, including humans, clearly indicate their common primordial origin




Evolution is a Fact and a Theory[/url]

Newtons laws are not a theory. The law of conservation of energy is not a theory. Those are facts so lets get that straight
Lets deal with those unstoppable "facts" shall we? Im assuming you have no idea how these numbers are ascertained since you just posted an organizations viewpoint on the manner. The biggest problem is that all those numbers you posted are completely based on assumptions. Science is something tangible and testable, what your trying to say is along the lines of a fairy tale...

 

[Serenity7855]

I refer you to my post 3760 in a thread at http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...le-rational-proof-god-exists-existed-376.html.

That post shows that the National Academy of Science, which is the most prestigious scientific organization in the U.S., says that science cannot reasonably prove, or disprove the existence of God, and that even some Christians disagree with your claim, including George Lemaitre, who was a Roman Catholic physicist, and was one of the founders of the Big Bang theory.

The National Academy of Science, and George Lemaitre, are much better scientific sources than William Lane Craig is.



You previously said that you accept common descent. Have you changed your mind? Consider the following from the National Academies of Science:

Evolution Resources from the National Academies



In addition, consider the following from Wikipedia:



Further, consider the following:

Beliefs of the U.S. public about evolution and creation



That means that 99.86% of experts in the U.S. accept common descent, which would include the majority of Christian experts.

So, according to the vast majority of experts, evolution is a virtual fact, which means that it is very probably true, and that there are not any good scientific reasons to reject it.

Your comment "Nobody has witnessed the transition between one species to another" is not an adequate rejection of common descent, and is an absurd argument that would be rejected by most experts, and even by the majority of Christian experts.

Anyone who thinks that they know enough about biology to adequately discredit common descent needs to thoroughly critique Dr. Douglas Theobald's comprehensive article on common descent at 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent.

William Lane Craig is widely known for appealing to authority, which I do not object to, and which I sometimes do myself, but he questions common descent even though he admits that he is an amateur in biology. That means that regarding the issue of common descent, Craig is a hypocrite.

I actually do not know what William Lane Craig 's opinions are on common descent. I have my own opinions. Some overlap onto WLC' s beliefs and some on Christopher Hitchens beliefs. I believe in evolution, full stop, but that does not prevent me from pointing out the discrepancies in it, one of which is that macroevolution has never been witnessed by the human eyes.

 

[Fredcow9]

Are you proposing that Adam and Eve were the first humans, and did not have any genetic predecessors?

According to the majority of experts, evolution has been observed. Consider the following:







Are you implying that the earth is young?

Jerry Coyne, Ph.D., biology, is a well-known, and distinguished biologist, and college professor. He has an article that shows that there has been enough time for evolution to occur. Would you like to critique the article?

Do you believe that a global flood occurred?

Im sorry, the evolution I am referring to is darwinian evolution. In that one species will transform into another. Building resistance to pesticides is not a form of evolution in that sense...by building this resistance you will not get a new creature regardless of how much pesticide resistance there is. You wont witness a thrip or spider mite become a ladybug out of nowhere.
I am curious though as to the proposed models for development of carniverous bugs as opposed to vegetarian bugs. Also why do evolutionists believe anything evolves as in what is the proven mechanism within the "law" of evolution that grants the ability for something to go from a water animal to a land animal?

Yes and thats a fact. Even under an evolutionary model there had to be an adam an eve. You must start with 2. No form of mankind has been shown to reproduce asexually and outside of some disturbing experiments, no monkey has impregnated a human and vice versa.
Now I suppose if your a racist bigot you might actually think there is observed evolution through genetic modifications in man. Yet are not all men, men? If evolution is a real process which race is inferior in your opinion?

Yes I would contend the world is vastley younger than proposed. How old? I personally have no idea tbh. I really couldnt stretch it past a few tens of thousands of years. I do contend that the bible is accurate enough to get a good idea on the manner but I havent personally looked into it or done the math.
Yea I believe in a global flood. I think its no accident in thousands of cultures there is a flood story. How would you account for that by the way?

I guess what this comes down to is that the people here arguing are using non tangible evidence. Its easy to hide behind an idea if no one can verify it. Again we already have many ancient cultures and not so ancient even that observed and even tested God or a "god" of some kind. These people already have done the legwork and to dismiss the vast amount of mans history that tells you this really just baffles me. Again this is the 1 consistent thing in man. If its not true then why is it every peoples everywhere has a god experience so to speak?

 

[Serenity7855]

Are you proposing that Adam and Eve were the first humans, and did not have any genetic predecessors?

According to the majority of experts, evolution has been observed. Consider the following:

Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution





Are you implying that the earth is young?

Jerry Coyne, Ph.D., biology, is a well-known, and distinguished biologist, and college professor. He has an article at
There’s plenty of time for evolution « Why Evolution Is True that shows that there has been enough time for evolution to occur. Would you like to critique the article?

Do you believe that a global flood occurred?

It is futile to quote Internet articles to substantiate your opinions because there will be an article that will refute your article every time you present one. I do not need an article to tell me that evolution happens. It is simply the only reasonable theory available, just like there must have been a cause to the big bang. What is very interesting about evolution is abiogenesis. One of Gods miracles that man cannot replicate, no matter how hard he tries or how much money he throws at it. A supernatural event.

 

[Agnostic75]

I'm sorry, the evolution I am referring to is darwinian evolution. In that one species will transform into another. Building resistance to pesticides is not a form of evolution in that sense...by building this resistance you will not get a new creature regardless of how much pesticide resistance there is. You won't witness a thrip or spider mite become a ladybug out of nowhere.

I refer you to the articles that I mentioned in my post 952. Since you do not understand them, you are objecting to scientific evidence that you do not understand. That means that your objections to common descent are probably mostly religious.

Anyone who thinks that they know enough about biology to adequately discredit common descent needs to thoroughly critique Dr. Douglas Theobald's comprehensive article on common descent at 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent.

 

[Agnostic75]

It is futile to quote Internet articles to substantiate your opinions because there will be an article that will refute your article every time you present one.

A large consensus of experts accepts common descent, including the majority of Christian experts. It is common for amateurs to refer to large consensuses of experts. In court trials, experts are sometimes called to testify, not amateurs. Experts write textbooks, not amateurs. Are you implying that it is futile for amateurs to refer to large consensuses of experts? Would you prefer that amateurs refer to their own inadequate knowledge of various subjects?

Is it futile for amateurs to refer to large consensuses of experts who reject the global flood theory, and the young earth theory?

I do not need an article to tell me that evolution happens.

Why do you accept common descent? If some of your reasons are books, and articles, according to you, "it is futile to quote Internet articles to substantiate your opinions because there will be an article that will refute your article every time you present one."

Perhaps you mean that you personally know enough about biology to conclude that common descent is probably true, but I doubt that you know enough about it to defeat some creationists in debates who have Ph.D.s in biology. I do not know very much about biology, so I accept the opinions of a large consensus of experts who accept common descent. Experts can be wrong, but they are often right.

It is simply the only reasonable theory available.......

Tell that to Fredcow9.

.......just like there must have been a cause to the big bang.

If there was a cause for the Big Bang, that does not necessarily mean that a God exists, although I believe that an unknown God might exist.

If I could take any reasonable man, from off the street, who was totally impartial and without mindless bigotry, void of the brain washing techniques of Atheists and open minded enough to learn, I could satisfy his mind, using the scientific knowledge that we currently have, that it is more likely for their to be a God, then not.

The National Academy of Sciences if the most prestigious scientific organization in the U.S. It says that science cannot reasonably prove, or disprove the existence of God.

George Lemaitre was a brilliant physicist, and a Roman Catholic priest. He was one of the founders of the Big Bang theory. Albert Einstein had some discussions with Lemaitre, and said that Lemaitre's theory was the most beautiful theory that he had ever read. Consider the following:

Georges Lemaitre, Father of the Big Bang

It is tempting to think that Lemaître’s deeply-held religious beliefs might have led him to the notion of a beginning of time. After all, the Judeo-Christian tradition had propagated a similar idea for millennia. Yet Lemaître clearly insisted that there was neither a connection nor a conflict between his religion and his science. Rather he kept them entirely separate, treating them as different, parallel interpretations of the world, both of which he believed with personal conviction. Indeed, when Pope Pius XII referred to the new theory of the origin of the universe as a scientific validation of the Catholic faith, Lemaître was rather alarmed. Delicately, for that was his way, he tried to separate the two:

“As far as I can see, such a theory remains entirely outside any metaphysical or religious question. It leaves the materialist free to deny any transcendental Being… For the believer, it removes any attempt at familiarity with God… It is consonant with Isaiah speaking of the hidden God, hidden even in the beginning of the universe.”

So one of the founders of the Big Bang theory would object to you trying to use science to reasonably prove the existence of God.

Ken Miller, Ph.D., biology, is a well-known biologist, and testified at the Dover trial. Miller is a Christian, and a theistic evolutionist. Consider the following:

NOVA | In Defense of Evolution

Question: What's wrong with bringing God into the picture as an explanation?

Miller: Supernatural causes for natural phenomena are always possible. What's different, however, in the scientific view is the acknowledgement that if supernatural causes are there, they are above our capacity to analyze and interpret.

Saying that something has a supernatural cause is always possible, but saying that the supernatural can be investigated by science, which always has to work with natural tools and mechanisms, is simply incorrect. So by placing the supernatural as a cause in science, you effectively have what you might call a science-stopper. If you attribute an event to the supernatural, you can by definition investigate it no further.

If you close off investigation, you don't look for natural causes. If we had done that 100 years ago in biology, think of what we wouldn't have discovered because we would have said, "Well, the designer did it. End of story. Let's go do something else." It would have been a terrible day for science.

Question: Does science have limits to what it can tell us?

Miller: If science is competent at anything, it's in investigating the natural and material world around us. What science isn't very good at is answering questions that also matter to us in a big way, such as the meaning, value, and purpose of things. Science is silent on those issues. There are a whole host of philosophical and moral questions that are important to us as human beings for which we have to make up our minds using a method outside of science.

Question: Can science prove or disprove the existence of a creator, of God?

Miller: Whether God exists or not is not a scientific question.

Please note "Whether God exists or not is not a scientific question."

What is very interesting about evolution is abiogenesis. One of God's miracles that man cannot replicate, no matter how hard he tries or how much money he throws at it. A supernatural event.

It is common knowledge even to most creationist experts that evolution does not have anything to do with abiogenesis, and that evolution studies changes in lifeforms, not their ultimate origins.

If scientists were one day able to create life, many theists would still be theists and would still appeal to theology as evidence for their religious beliefs.

Are you proposing that if scientists were able to create life that that would means that naturalism is true, and that no god exists?

The fact that scientists have not been able to create life does not necessarily mean that they will not be able to create life in the future.

If a God exists, why must he be the God of the Bible?

 

[McBell]

Im sorry, the evolution I am referring to is darwinian evolution.

Well, at least you are honest enough to specify which strawman you are calling evolution...

 

[McBell]

A supernatural event.

Bold empty claim.

 

[outhouse]

Those are facts so lets get that straight
Lets deal with those unstoppable "facts" shall we?.

Sure


We can debate facts when you go and look up the definition, and get on board with what a fact actually is.

 

[outhouse]

one of which is that macroevolution has never been witnessed by the human eyes.

Sorry, speciation has been observed.

Micro and macro evolution are one in the same, creationist just love to pervert its usage out of context. Usually from ignorance

 

[outhouse]

Even under an evolutionary model there had to be an adam an eve. You must start with 2.

I don't mind someone who does not understand science. It covers a large area and there is quite a bit to know.

But its the biblical ignorance from theist that really bothers me.


Besides the fact your wrong here, and that 2 cannot, nor ever has started, a breeding population ever!


You need to learn the difference between mythology, allegory and metaphor, and how ancient Israelites used rhetoric in their scripture.

Maybe you could tell us how an ancient people who did not even know their own Canaanite heritage or origins, could possibly know how people evolved millions of years before their formation.

Maybe you could tell me how their mythology, matched word for word previous cultures to Israelites??

 

[Fredcow9]

I refer you to the articles that I mentioned in my post 952. Since you do not understand them, you are objecting to scientific evidence that you do not understand. That means that your objections to common descent are probably mostly religious.

Anyone who thinks that they know enough about biology to adequately discredit common descent needs to thoroughly critique Dr. Douglas Theobald's comprehensive article on common descent at .

It would do you good to actually read your own articles you post. I completely agree that for example in the article: "None of the dozens of predictions directly address how macroevolution has occurred, how fins were able to develop into limbs, how the leopard got its spots, or how the vertebrate eye evolved. None of the evidence recounted here assumes that natural selection is valid. None of the evidence assumes that natural selection is sufficient for generating adaptations or the differences between species and other taxa."

Again you are doing the same thing creationists are accused of doing all the time. We take predictions from the bible and match them up against the actual natural world.

It would also do you well to respond to the rest of my post. In regards to your argument, its really comming accross as extremely lazy considering you havent cited a single known study in which one animal or bug or lizard is observed turning into another. All these "predictions" are nothing more than a childs imagination. Monkeys and humans look alike so boom! Thats where we came from or stating because certain species are similar in genetic makeup means they are of common descent is nothing more than wishful thinking.
There are for example there are approximatley 1,200 species of spider mites. Not one species has been observed to turn away from its actual kind and become something other than a spider mite. How do you account for this in an evolutionary perspective in addition to answering the rest of my post.

 

[outhouse]

We take predictions from the bible and match them up against the actual natural world.

.

With that methodology, one can imagine anything he wants and create a false sense of reality quite easily.

Context is key. The bible has never been or should be used as a science or history book, by anyone!

let alone those with no real knowledge of how the first 5 books were written by mostly unknown authors after pervious collections were compiled together.

 

[Agnostic75]

Edit: Deletion of duplicate post.