Evidence for God from Science

Philip wrote:
Patrick - you ARE older than me!

Nessa: Don't get toooo excited there, Phil

Its only by two years

Well, B.W. is fast on my bumper - so he'll hit the big number just after me.

grandpapapatrick wrote:RickD- Are you trying to be funnily sarcastic?
I am currently writing a book on the history of the universe from a Christian world view. (well, my Christian world view) I see absolutely no conflict between evolution and the Christian world view. To say that God created us without evolution is to say that God created us without chemistry. Or He created us without quantum mechanics, He created us without DNA etc.

It is not a "crazy idea." or "stuff." I thought this website was called "Evidence for God FROM Science, not Evidence for God WITHOUT Science." The theory of evolution is one of those science concepts that has such a vast amount of evidence that it is no longer a theory, it is fact.

Philip- I'm 62, not sure if I am older or younger than you.

I guess you'd have to define what you mean by evolution. A scientific fact, is a repeatable careful observation. I hope you'd agree that all of what is entailed in the theory of evolution, certainly isn't observable nor repeatable.

But if by "evolution", you simply mean, "change over time", then I'd agree.

RickD wrote:

grandpapapatrick wrote:RickD- Are you trying to be funnily sarcastic?
I am currently writing a book on the history of the universe from a Christian world view. (well, my Christian world view) I see absolutely no conflict between evolution and the Christian world view. To say that God created us without evolution is to say that God created us without chemistry. Or He created us without quantum mechanics, He created us without DNA etc.

It is not a "crazy idea." or "stuff." I thought this website was called "Evidence for God FROM Science, not Evidence for God WITHOUT Science." The theory of evolution is one of those science concepts that has such a vast amount of evidence that it is no longer a theory, it is fact.

Philip- I'm 62, not sure if I am older or younger than you.

I guess you'd have to define what you mean by evolution. A scientific fact, is a repeatable careful observation. I hope you'd agree that all of what is entailed in the theory of evolution, certainly isn't observable nor repeatable.

But if by "evolution", you simply mean, "change over time", then I'd agree.

Another scientific 'fact' is the proposition of a theory then seeing if the data is consistent with the theory. So long as the data does not contradict the theory, it is said to be valid. The theory is invalidated when a set of data can be shown to not fit the theory. To my knowledge, there has not been any data shown to not fit the theory of evolution.

Byblos wrote:

RickD wrote:

grandpapapatrick wrote:RickD- Are you trying to be funnily sarcastic?
I am currently writing a book on the history of the universe from a Christian world view. (well, my Christian world view) I see absolutely no conflict between evolution and the Christian world view. To say that God created us without evolution is to say that God created us without chemistry. Or He created us without quantum mechanics, He created us without DNA etc.

It is not a "crazy idea." or "stuff." I thought this website was called "Evidence for God FROM Science, not Evidence for God WITHOUT Science." The theory of evolution is one of those science concepts that has such a vast amount of evidence that it is no longer a theory, it is fact.

Philip- I'm 62, not sure if I am older or younger than you.

I guess you'd have to define what you mean by evolution. A scientific fact, is a repeatable careful observation. I hope you'd agree that all of what is entailed in the theory of evolution, certainly isn't observable nor repeatable.

But if by "evolution", you simply mean, "change over time", then I'd agree.

Another scientific 'fact' is the proposition of a theory then seeing if the data is consistent with the theory. So long as the data does not contradict the theory, it is said to be valid. The theory is invalidated when a set of data can be shown to not fit the theory. To my knowledge, there has not been any data shown to not fit the theory of evolution.

Actually, no. Parts of the TOE haven't been observed. They're just assumed. Any OBSERVATION that has not been refuted. Nobody observed molecules to man evolution.

scientific fact
noun
any observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and accepted as true; any scientific observation that has not been refuted

Kinda tough to refute something that's not observable nor verifiable.

RickD wrote:

Byblos wrote:

RickD wrote:

grandpapapatrick wrote:RickD- Are you trying to be funnily sarcastic?
I am currently writing a book on the history of the universe from a Christian world view. (well, my Christian world view) I see absolutely no conflict between evolution and the Christian world view. To say that God created us without evolution is to say that God created us without chemistry. Or He created us without quantum mechanics, He created us without DNA etc.

It is not a "crazy idea." or "stuff." I thought this website was called "Evidence for God FROM Science, not Evidence for God WITHOUT Science." The theory of evolution is one of those science concepts that has such a vast amount of evidence that it is no longer a theory, it is fact.

Philip- I'm 62, not sure if I am older or younger than you.

I guess you'd have to define what you mean by evolution. A scientific fact, is a repeatable careful observation. I hope you'd agree that all of what is entailed in the theory of evolution, certainly isn't observable nor repeatable.

But if by "evolution", you simply mean, "change over time", then I'd agree.

Another scientific 'fact' is the proposition of a theory then seeing if the data is consistent with the theory. So long as the data does not contradict the theory, it is said to be valid. The theory is invalidated when a set of data can be shown to not fit the theory. To my knowledge, there has not been any data shown to not fit the theory of evolution.

Actually, no. Parts of the TOE haven't been observed. They're just assumed. Any OBSERVATION that has not been refuted. Nobody observed molecules to man evolution.

scientific fact
noun
any observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and accepted as true; any scientific observation that has not been refuted

Kinda tough to refute something that's not observable nor verifiable.

A scientific theory not only includes observable and repeatable testing but also encompasses making generalized predictions about those observations. So long as new discoveries do not invalidate or contradict the predictions made, the theory stands. When Einstein came up with the general theory of relativity he was shunned by many peers. Yet his theory stood the test of time (pardon the pun). It is possible future discoveries may invalidate his theory (a unified field theory for example). Unless and until that happens, his theory stands true. And so it is with evolution.

Byblos wrote:

RickD wrote:

Byblos wrote:

RickD wrote:

grandpapapatrick wrote:RickD- Are you trying to be funnily sarcastic?
I am currently writing a book on the history of the universe from a Christian world view. (well, my Christian world view) I see absolutely no conflict between evolution and the Christian world view. To say that God created us without evolution is to say that God created us without chemistry. Or He created us without quantum mechanics, He created us without DNA etc.

It is not a "crazy idea." or "stuff." I thought this website was called "Evidence for God FROM Science, not Evidence for God WITHOUT Science." The theory of evolution is one of those science concepts that has such a vast amount of evidence that it is no longer a theory, it is fact.

Philip- I'm 62, not sure if I am older or younger than you.

I guess you'd have to define what you mean by evolution. A scientific fact, is a repeatable careful observation. I hope you'd agree that all of what is entailed in the theory of evolution, certainly isn't observable nor repeatable.

But if by "evolution", you simply mean, "change over time", then I'd agree.

Another scientific 'fact' is the proposition of a theory then seeing if the data is consistent with the theory. So long as the data does not contradict the theory, it is said to be valid. The theory is invalidated when a set of data can be shown to not fit the theory. To my knowledge, there has not been any data shown to not fit the theory of evolution.

Actually, no. Parts of the TOE haven't been observed. They're just assumed. Any OBSERVATION that has not been refuted. Nobody observed molecules to man evolution.

scientific fact
noun
any observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and accepted as true; any scientific observation that has not been refuted

Kinda tough to refute something that's not observable nor verifiable.

A scientific theory not only includes observable and repeatable testing but also encompasses making generalized predictions about those observations. So long as new discoveries do not invalidate or contradict the predictions made, the theory stands. When Einstein came up with the general theory of relativity he was shunned by many peers. Yet his theory stood the test of time (pardon the pun). It is possible future discoveries may invalidate his theory (a unified field theory for example). Unless and until that happens, his theory stands true. And so it is with evolution.

Again,

Parts of the TOE are not observable nor verifiable. So how can one make predictions about "those observations", when they're not observations?

RickD wrote:

Byblos wrote:A scientific theory not only includes observable and repeatable testing but also encompasses making generalized predictions about those observations. So long as new discoveries do not invalidate or contradict the predictions made, the theory stands. When Einstein came up with the general theory of relativity he was shunned by many peers. Yet his theory stood the test of time (pardon the pun). It is possible future discoveries may invalidate his theory (a unified field theory for example). Unless and until that happens, his theory stands true. And so it is with evolution.

Again,

Parts of the TOE are not observable nor verifiable. So how can one make predictions about "those observations", when they're not observations?

In line with the observable and testable, predictions are made on what is not observable. You are correct in stating molecules-to-man is not testable nor observable. ToE makes predictions, based on observable tests, for example that chimps and homo sapien sapiens have a common ancestor. When DNA was discovered and further testing was made, sure enough it was discovered (observed) that they have almost identical chromosomal count, save for an extra one. Further testing showed that in humans 2 chromosomes had fused into one, thereby showing more evidence that they have a common ancestor with chimps. In other words, a prediction was made and new observations were in line with the prediction. That's also how mathematical theories work. Higgs came up with his mathematical model for the existence of the boson some 50 years ago. His theory was proven a few years ago by actually discovering it. His theory was validated by new observations. That's how science works.

So many people think that in most every other area, scientists
have things pretty much right, but in the theory of evolution
they have just blown it?

Evidence of common descent of living organisms has been
discovered by scientists researching in a variety of disciplines
over many decades, demonstrating the common descent of all
life on Earth developed from a last universal ancestor.

Evolutionary biologists document evidence of common descent
by developing testable predictions, testing hypotheses, and
constructing theories that illustrate and describe its causes.

But the key idea is not is evolution real, but don't we have a
wonderful Father in heaven who loves us and used this amazing
process in his divine wisdom to give rise to us!

I don't want to spend time talking about "what is a species" or
microevolution vs. macroevolution but to look at the big picture
and see how from the singularity to now how God used exploding
stars and gravity and the collision of Theia and Earth, with many
different parameters set just perfectly by Him not only us but a
universe where many, many other planets and moons likely contain
millions and millions of other societies with sentient life forms...
all to the glory of a spiritual triune Being without beginning or ending
who is omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent and maybe "interfered"
with His creation from time to time, to create unique changes and
miracles.

I am interested in studying this timeline, not to find scientific evidence
which I don't think exists or will exist because Jesus wants us to accept
Him on faith and not simply because the evidence exists.

Just my thoughts, I could be wrong. I have been wrong in the past and
this may be another time.

Lots of love to all! Big Hug!
GrandpapaPatrick

Byblos wrote:
In line with the observable and testable, predictions are made on what is not observable. You are correct in stating molecules-to-man is not testable nor observable...

Then by definition, ToE is not a scientific fact. A theory? Yes. The best scientific theory we have at this time? Yes. But, by definition, a scientific fact must be observable and verifiable.

RickD wrote:

Byblos wrote:
In line with the observable and testable, predictions are made on what is not observable. You are correct in stating molecules-to-man is not testable nor observable...

Then by definition, ToE is not a scientific fact. A theory? Yes. The best scientific theory we have at this time? Yes. But, by definition, a scientific fact must be observable and verifiable.

With all due respect Rick, you are still conflating the use of the word 'theory' in the common vernacular as opposed to how it is understood by the scientific community.

RickD
With respect, why aren't fossils observable? I've seen them. And why aren't the verifiable? ToE is scientific fact.
What leading evolutionist have you read who has this opinion? I am really curious.
Warmly,
GrandpapaPatrick

Byblos "With all due respect Rick, you are still conflating the use of the word 'theory' in the common vernacular as opposed to how it is understood by the scientific community."
Exactly! There is a difference. Great point.
Love to all,
GrandpapPatrick

RickD wrote:

Byblos wrote:

RickD wrote:

Byblos wrote:

RickD wrote: I guess you'd have to define what you mean by evolution. A scientific fact, is a repeatable careful observation. I hope you'd agree that all of what is entailed in the theory of evolution, certainly isn't observable nor repeatable.

But if by "evolution", you simply mean, "change over time", then I'd agree.

Another scientific 'fact' is the proposition of a theory then seeing if the data is consistent with the theory. So long as the data does not contradict the theory, it is said to be valid. The theory is invalidated when a set of data can be shown to not fit the theory. To my knowledge, there has not been any data shown to not fit the theory of evolution.

Actually, no. Parts of the TOE haven't been observed. They're just assumed. Any OBSERVATION that has not been refuted. Nobody observed molecules to man evolution.

scientific fact
noun
any observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and accepted as true; any scientific observation that has not been refuted

Kinda tough to refute something that's not observable nor verifiable.

A scientific theory not only includes observable and repeatable testing but also encompasses making generalized predictions about those observations. So long as new discoveries do not invalidate or contradict the predictions made, the theory stands. When Einstein came up with the general theory of relativity he was shunned by many peers. Yet his theory stood the test of time (pardon the pun). It is possible future discoveries may invalidate his theory (a unified field theory for example). Unless and until that happens, his theory stands true. And so it is with evolution.

Again,

Parts of the TOE are not observable nor verifiable. So how can one make predictions about "those observations", when they're not observations?

Because the underlying mechanisms and principles hold true, all the time. It's the same way you always write 4 as an answer whenever you add 2 to 2 or when you add to 10 to 10 and always get 20. You don't need to prove that such and such is true everytime because the underlying principle remains the same. And when it works on micro scale, as you use the term, it is natural to predict that it does on macro.

In one aspect, it rerminds me of the same question where I could ask an athiest, what would he do if God makes himself visible to him? With the probable answer that he thinks he needs to see a shrink. So it's not evidence really it's what you think can/could really happen or have happened.

However, you can see the evidence in DNA, but you come back with the belief that God put the same material in everything so the DNA does nothing for you. Where in fact in TOE, it is evidence. It takes away doubt and clearly shows why evolution (to me there isn't any difference between macro or micro as one leads to the other) works.

The only real problem in biology today is the origin of life, not how evolution works, which is mostly an American (conservative christian's mostly) issue it seems, as the rest of the world has moved on.

So I don't see any evidence convincing you either way, mostly because of the fact that the type of evidence criteria you have set up for your self, shoots itself in the foot, the same way, the athiest does when even when he sees visible evidence of God he thinks its a delusion. There is no way around that, ever. You have to be open to it and ready to accept it, letting go of your beliefs whatever they may be to stand false when you have evidence against it. And until one does that, no matter how honest you are, you are obstacled by your own logic, nothing else.

And, in any case, I don't think it's a fair to hope to somehow contract massive timescales to short human lives in order for nature to bend itself to provide us evidence because we are not satisfied. That is unrealistic.

To be more apt, it will be like you, a christian convincing me (for argument's sake an athiest) of God with evidence all around, from creation, etc etc, and I keep asking to show me God, i want to see God myself, otherwise I won't accept there is a God.

There is evidence after evidence of evolution but you want to see it otherwise you don't believe it.
my two cents.

Byblos wrote:

RickD wrote:

Byblos wrote:
In line with the observable and testable, predictions are made on what is not observable. You are correct in stating molecules-to-man is not testable nor observable...

Then by definition, ToE is not a scientific fact. A theory? Yes. The best scientific theory we have at this time? Yes. But, by definition, a scientific fact must be observable and verifiable.

With all due respect Rick, you are still conflating the use of the word 'theory' in the common vernacular as opposed to how it is understood by the scientific community.

Byblos,

I'm not disagreeing with you on the meaning of theory. I'm disagreeing with you on how you think TOE is a scientific fact. I looked at the definition of scientific fact, and it says that a scientific fact MUST BE observable and verifiable. Molecules to man is not observable nor verifiable. It is assumed, from the rest of the theory, which is circular reasoning.

What do the oldest single-celled life forms have in common with humans? And, is it possible that a creator created those similarities into those life forms, instead of one evolving from the other?

neo-x wrote:

RickD wrote:

Byblos wrote:

RickD wrote:

Byblos wrote:
Another scientific 'fact' is the proposition of a theory then seeing if the data is consistent with the theory. So long as the data does not contradict the theory, it is said to be valid. The theory is invalidated when a set of data can be shown to not fit the theory. To my knowledge, there has not been any data shown to not fit the theory of evolution.

Actually, no. Parts of the TOE haven't been observed. They're just assumed. Any OBSERVATION that has not been refuted. Nobody observed molecules to man evolution.

scientific fact
noun
any observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and accepted as true; any scientific observation that has not been refuted

Kinda tough to refute something that's not observable nor verifiable.

A scientific theory not only includes observable and repeatable testing but also encompasses making generalized predictions about those observations. So long as new discoveries do not invalidate or contradict the predictions made, the theory stands. When Einstein came up with the general theory of relativity he was shunned by many peers. Yet his theory stood the test of time (pardon the pun). It is possible future discoveries may invalidate his theory (a unified field theory for example). Unless and until that happens, his theory stands true. And so it is with evolution.

Again,

Parts of the TOE are not observable nor verifiable. So how can one make predictions about "those observations", when they're not observations?

Because the underlying mechanisms and principles hold true, all the time. It's the same way you always write 4 as an answer whenever you add 2 to 2 or when you add to 10 to 10 and always get 20. You don't need to prove that such and such is true everytime because the underlying principle remains the same. And when it works on micro scale, as you use the term, it is natural to predict that it does on macro.

In one aspect, it rerminds me of the same question where I could ask an athiest, what would he do if God makes himself visible to him? With the probable answer that he thinks he needs to see a shrink. So it's not evidence really it's what you think can/could really happen or have happened.

However, you can see the evidence in DNA, but you come back with the belief that God put the same material in everything so the DNA does nothing for you. Where in fact in TOE, it is evidence. It takes away doubt and clearly shows why evolution (to me there isn't any difference between macro or micro as one leads to the other) works.

The only real problem in biology today is the origin of life, not how evolution works, which is mostly an American (conservative christian's mostly) issue it seems, as the rest of the world has moved on.

So I don't see any evidence convincing you either way, mostly because of the fact that the type of evidence criteria you have set up for your self, shoots itself in the foot, the same way, the athiest does when even when he sees visible evidence of God he thinks its a delusion. There is no way around that, ever. You have to be open to it and ready to accept it, letting go of your beliefs whatever they may be to stand false when you have evidence against it. And until one does that, no matter how honest you are, you are obstacled by your own logic, nothing else.

And, in any case, I don't think it's a fair to hope to somehow contract massive timescales to short human lives in order for nature to bend itself to provide us evidence because we are not satisfied. That is unrealistic.

To be more apt, it will be like you, a christian convincing me (for argument's sake an athiest) of God with evidence all around, from creation, etc etc, and I keep asking to show me God, i want to see God myself, otherwise I won't accept there is a God.

There is evidence after evidence of evolution but you want to see it otherwise you don't believe it.
my two cents.

Neo,

I see plenty of evidence for evolution. Just not molecules to man. I have no reason not to accept any kind of evolution that I would believe to be true. Again, you assume macro because of micro. I on the other hand, don't assume macro(on the scale of molecules to man) from micro, when there's another possibility.