Evidence for God from Science

jpbg33 wrote:You are reading in to it. It says he made earth then took from earth that he made and made everything from that. After its kind is referring to the fact that God made different types of animals then these animals produced more animals just like them selves. We are humans and if we read into something we get it wrong most of the time. So if God said he did it in 6 day. That is what I believe happened. And if that is the best way for God to explain it to humans then evolution is wrong.

You said after its kind is referring to the fact God made different types of animals then these animals produced more animals just like them selves. I agree with the latter part of your sentence because it says God created the life to produce after its kind,but tell me what God making the animals after their kind means?don't just skim over it,even if you think different than I do,what does it mean when it says God made the animals after their kind?Try not to jump over this phrase to God created them to produce after their kind like you did.

Danieltwotwenty wrote:Oh this is going to be interesting ACB has met his match and so has jpbg, two people who think their interpretation of scripture is equal to God's word itself.

Yeah, what a joke. Everyone knows its me who reads the word of God for what it is actually is.

After its kind means that after God made a dog then dogs produced more dogs. Anything else is reading in to it. This is what the bible says. God had the earth bring forth creatures after his kind meaning that the earth brought forth a dog and more dogs came about from the dogs that were created.

Just an FYI:
http://biologos.org/blog/what-makes-bio ... ntelligent

At BioLogos, we present the Evolutionary Creationism (EC) viewpoint on origins. Like all Christians, we fully affirm that God is the creator of all life—including human beings in his image. We fully affirm that the Bible is the inspired and authoritative word of God. We also accept the science of evolution as the best description for how God brought about the diversity of life on earth.
But while we accept the scientific evidence for evolution, BioLogos emphatically rejects Evolutionism, the atheistic worldview that so often accompanies the acceptance of biological evolution in public discussion. Evolutionism is a kind of scientism, which holds that all of reality can in principle be explained by science. In contrast, BioLogos believes that science is limited to explaining the natural world, and that supernatural events like miracles are part of reality too.

On that page you will also find the common definitions of YEC, OEC and ID and how they differ from the EC/TE view.

This part, however, is perhaps the most crucial and one we all need to remember whenever we disagree about these things:

While Christians differ on their views of the age of the earth and evolution, we all agree on the essentials of the faith: that all people have sinned and that salvation comes only through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. We agree that the God of our salvation is the same God we see in the wonders of his creation. Whether we ponder the intricacy of DNA, the beauty of a dolphin, or the vastness of the Milky Way, we can lift our hearts together in praise to the divine Artist who made it all.

Amen.

I'm wondering (too lazy to look) if there's anything on that site regarding micro vs macro evolution.

Byblos wrote:I'm wondering (too lazy to look) if there's anything on that site regarding micro vs macro evolution.

There is nothing to micro vs macro tho some imagine otherwise.

Audie,here is your chance to back that up with scientific evidence.This thread is directed at theistic evolutionists but if you believe life evolves too you can back it up with scientific evidence.I encourage it because this thread is for those who believe it and the evidence for it. Evidence can change my mind about evolution and I reject it because of a lack of evidence,I know it probably seems like a lot of evidence to you and there is a lot to wade through but I've waded through it and despite what seems like a lot of evidence,it really isn't. It is just a bunch of so-called evidence piled up on top of the belief by faith and assumptions that life evolves.Perhaps you don't want to take the time to post a bunch of evidence so focus on the strongest evidence you know of that convinces you life evolves.I want to be corrected if I've over looked something.

abelcainsbrother wrote:Audie,here is your chance to back that up with scientific evidence.This thread is directed at theistic evolutionists but if you believe life evolves too you can back it up with scientific evidence.I encourage it because this thread is for those who believe it and the evidence for it. Evidence can change my mind about evolution and I reject it because of a lack of evidence,I know it probably seems like a lot of evidence to you and there is a lot to wade through but I've waded through it and despite what seems like a lot of evidence,it really isn't. It is just a bunch of so-called evidence piled up on top of the belief by faith and assumptions that life evolves.Perhaps you don't want to take the time to post a bunch of evidence so focus on the strongest evidence you know of that convinces you life evolves.I want to be corrected if I've over looked something.

Hi ACB, just wondering...

To be fair, what kind of scientific evidence would prove to you that life evolved?
Can you provide an example of evidence that would be satisfactory to you.

Just, I often feel both sides talk past each other as they're thinking two different things.
To say there is no evidence for evolution I think is a bit of an oversimplification.

For example, we see viruses develop resistances to antibiotics... we see insects develop resistances to pesticides.
Those who hold to a global flood scenario, also believe in a really rapid evolution from two animals "after their kind".

So really, everyone accepts "evolution" per se, and as such, there is acceptance to some degree for "evolution".
BUT, obviously you mean something more... right?

Kurieuo wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:Audie,here is your chance to back that up with scientific evidence.This thread is directed at theistic evolutionists but if you believe life evolves too you can back it up with scientific evidence.I encourage it because this thread is for those who believe it and the evidence for it. Evidence can change my mind about evolution and I reject it because of a lack of evidence,I know it probably seems like a lot of evidence to you and there is a lot to wade through but I've waded through it and despite what seems like a lot of evidence,it really isn't. It is just a bunch of so-called evidence piled up on top of the belief by faith and assumptions that life evolves.Perhaps you don't want to take the time to post a bunch of evidence so focus on the strongest evidence you know of that convinces you life evolves.I want to be corrected if I've over looked something.

Hi ACB, just wondering...

To be fair, what kind of scientific evidence would prove to you that life evolved?
Can you provide an example of evidence that would be satisfactory to you.

Just, I often feel both sides talk past each other as they're thinking two different things.
To say there is no evidence for evolution I think is a bit of an oversimplification.

For example, we see viruses develop resistances to antibiotics... we see insects develop resistances to pesticides.
Those who hold to a global flood scenario, also believe in a really rapid evolution from two animals "after their kind".

So really, everyone accepts "evolution" per se, and as such, there is acceptance to some degree for "evolution".
BUT, obviously you mean something more... right?

I think ACB would require actually seeing the process of a creature turning into another creature take place before his very eyes. Obviously this is impossible as it takes millions of years for that to happen and requires millions of generations. The burden of proof is way too high for a historical science, it's like saying I don't believe there was a Roman Empire because I wasn't there to see it.

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:Audie,here is your chance to back that up with scientific evidence.This thread is directed at theistic evolutionists but if you believe life evolves too you can back it up with scientific evidence.I encourage it because this thread is for those who believe it and the evidence for it. Evidence can change my mind about evolution and I reject it because of a lack of evidence,I know it probably seems like a lot of evidence to you and there is a lot to wade through but I've waded through it and despite what seems like a lot of evidence,it really isn't. It is just a bunch of so-called evidence piled up on top of the belief by faith and assumptions that life evolves.Perhaps you don't want to take the time to post a bunch of evidence so focus on the strongest evidence you know of that convinces you life evolves.I want to be corrected if I've over looked something.

Hi ACB, just wondering...

To be fair, what kind of scientific evidence would prove to you that life evolved?
Can you provide an example of evidence that would be satisfactory to you.

Just, I often feel both sides talk past each other as they're thinking two different things.
To say there is no evidence for evolution I think is a bit of an oversimplification.

For example, we see viruses develop resistances to antibiotics... we see insects develop resistances to pesticides.
Those who hold to a global flood scenario, also believe in a really rapid evolution from two animals "after their kind".

So really, everyone accepts "evolution" per se, and as such, there is acceptance to some degree for "evolution".
BUT, obviously you mean something more... right?

I think ACB would require actually seeing the process of a creature turning into another creature take place before his very eyes. Obviously this is impossible as it takes millions of years for that to happen and requires millions of generations. The burden of proof is way too high for a historical science, it's like saying I don't believe there was a Roman Empire because I wasn't there to see it.

Yes, that would be called an unreasonable burden of proof.
Just like "show me God" is an unreasonable burden of proof.
But, I'd like to hear from ACB rather than put words in his mouth.

Such a kill joy K

Kurieuo wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:Audie,here is your chance to back that up with scientific evidence.This thread is directed at theistic evolutionists but if you believe life evolves too you can back it up with scientific evidence.I encourage it because this thread is for those who believe it and the evidence for it. Evidence can change my mind about evolution and I reject it because of a lack of evidence,I know it probably seems like a lot of evidence to you and there is a lot to wade through but I've waded through it and despite what seems like a lot of evidence,it really isn't. It is just a bunch of so-called evidence piled up on top of the belief by faith and assumptions that life evolves.Perhaps you don't want to take the time to post a bunch of evidence so focus on the strongest evidence you know of that convinces you life evolves.I want to be corrected if I've over looked something.

Hi ACB, just wondering...

To be fair, what kind of scientific evidence would prove to you that life evolved?
Can you provide an example of evidence that would be satisfactory to you.

Just, I often feel both sides talk past each other as they're thinking two different things.
To say there is no evidence for evolution I think is a bit of an oversimplification.

For example, we see viruses develop resistances to antibiotics... we see insects develop resistances to pesticides.
Those who hold to a global flood scenario, also believe in a really rapid evolution from two animals "after their kind".

So really, everyone accepts "evolution" per se, and as such, there is acceptance to some degree for "evolution".
BUT, obviously you mean something more... right?

First off you know very well how society is taught evolution is true,I mean even if you're watching TV they just have to throw in the evolution stuff and yet there is really no evidence life evolves.It would not bother me is they repeatedly made it clear this is just a theory,but they don't and despite theistic evolutionists who have accepted evolution but just say God used evolution to create,evolution is really used to prove the bible wrong.Now theistic evolutionists say it is no big deal that what Richard Dawkins says is not right but evolution is used to prove the bible wrong by atheists and most scientists are atheists.

It is up to science to prove or demonstrate life evolves and they have never done it,yet look at and interpret everything and all of the discoveries made,they interpret everything from an evolution perspective and yet they have no way to know life truly evolves,but believe it anyway.Instead of admitting they have no evidence life evolves they stretch the dating out of the universe and say evolution cannot be demonstrated or seen because it happens over such long periods of time.They keep on pushing even when they know it cannot be demonstrated.

They deceive by putting out evidence in which they present it as evidence life evolves like the virus thing you mentioned,they say this is evidence life evolves,when it is just life adapting. All the virus did was adapt but yet they say evolved.It is deception.
Explain to us how the virus evolved.
Also I made it clear that there is a lot of evidence to wade through,it makes it seem like evolution is true.I just expect evidence life evolves and this has nothing to do with God and proof or evidence he's real,this is science and has nothing to do with spiritual matters.

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:Audie,here is your chance to back that up with scientific evidence.This thread is directed at theistic evolutionists but if you believe life evolves too you can back it up with scientific evidence.I encourage it because this thread is for those who believe it and the evidence for it. Evidence can change my mind about evolution and I reject it because of a lack of evidence,I know it probably seems like a lot of evidence to you and there is a lot to wade through but I've waded through it and despite what seems like a lot of evidence,it really isn't. It is just a bunch of so-called evidence piled up on top of the belief by faith and assumptions that life evolves.Perhaps you don't want to take the time to post a bunch of evidence so focus on the strongest evidence you know of that convinces you life evolves.I want to be corrected if I've over looked something.

Hi ACB, just wondering...

To be fair, what kind of scientific evidence would prove to you that life evolved?
Can you provide an example of evidence that would be satisfactory to you.

Just, I often feel both sides talk past each other as they're thinking two different things.
To say there is no evidence for evolution I think is a bit of an oversimplification.

For example, we see viruses develop resistances to antibiotics... we see insects develop resistances to pesticides.
Those who hold to a global flood scenario, also believe in a really rapid evolution from two animals "after their kind".

So really, everyone accepts "evolution" per se, and as such, there is acceptance to some degree for "evolution".
BUT, obviously you mean something more... right?

I think ACB would require actually seeing the process of a creature turning into another creature take place before his very eyes. Obviously this is impossible as it takes millions of years for that to happen and requires millions of generations. The burden of proof is way too high for a historical science, it's like saying I don't believe there was a Roman Empire because I wasn't there to see it.

Evolution teaches that dinosaurs evolved into birds.What is wrong? You mean I must believe what you say in that peer reviewed paper?There is no demonstration it can happen?

Why should I believe you over believing that dinosaurs lived in the former world and perished when the former world perished just like all of the other life we find that is extinct,they simply died when the former world perished and your looking at the forensic evidence for a perished former world and all of the life that died until God created this world and the life we have in this world? I actually have evidence a former world full of life existed that perished. My belief that a former world perished from reading the bible is more credible with fossil evidence of the life that existed in the former world that perished.The lost world that was on this earth and it was lost because of evolution.

Byblos wrote:I'm wondering (too lazy to look) if there's anything on that site regarding micro vs macro evolution.

I did a search "micro vs macro", and here's what I got:
http://biologos.org/search?s=Micro+vs+macro

And here's what I got when I searched for "macroevolution":
http://biologos.org/search?s=macroevolution

Audie wrote:

Byblos wrote:I'm wondering (too lazy to look) if there's anything on that site regarding micro vs macro evolution.

There is nothing to micro vs macro tho some imagine otherwise.

Of course there is. I already showed you that an evolutionist is the one who coined micro and macro. And I've also shown you that evolutionists use the terms as well.

You seem to have a tough time accepting this.