GOD and science

When I was in university, my biology professor preached evolution during lectures - yet at one point (when we were studying the structure of the heart) she said "if we didn't know any better, we would think there would have to be a master creator who made the heart operate in such a way". All I could think was...do we know better? good thing we were alive millions of years ago so we can definitly say evolution is a fact. lol

by the way...there are a LOT of scientists who are christian - my Chem professor was one of them - and he was amazingly brilliant. One day he told the class that the more he learns about science the more he believes that there has to be a God. I wonder how much trouble he got in for that one...

name all the transitional species that connect the existing species...most macroevolutionists come up with a spurious three of them that are really not transitional species at all...at one stage the platypus was said to be the transitional creature between ducks and marsupials and that idea easily debunked...please explain how the bombardier beetle that is irreducibly complex evolved....it is IMPOSSIBLE....also the fossil evidence shows that creatures did not change from one species to another..and if you take into account that there are many many fossils depicting birds with their feathers intact and fish with their scales intact then the idea of fossil formation taking a long time is absurd

My husband is a wildlife guy who gets to spend all his time working in the bush (lucky guy), and he's always telling me about some little insect that, as soon as it's born, knows exactly where to go and what to do. He even made our family watch one of those Planet Earth episodes on these insects. It was pretty amazing.

Interesting website.

Here are a couple articles I found that are just wrong, in my opinion, and I'll explain why to the best of my knowledge (although I implore that if you're looking for someone who knows tons about evolution, researching some credible scientists is still the way to go. I research a lot about this because I find it interesting, but I'm by no means an expert):

What's a Missing Link?
This article, if you don't feel like reading it, says that evolution is missing evidence because there are no "missing links", or transitional stages between species, like fish and amphibians. Here's a website with a whole bunch of these supposed "missing links", although it doesn't include all of them (A few) transitional fossils

Another one is People Were Always People! - Answers in Genesis, which says that Homo sapiens and Homo erectus are actually the same species. This is not the case. There are differences between the two, such as Homo sapiens have higher brain functions, have different facial features, Homo sapiens have less hair, among other things. Here's a website going into more specifics of the differences between the two species: Difference Between Homo Sapiens and Homo Erectus | Difference Between

If you have any more that you want me to respond to I'd be happy to, those are just some that caught my attention.

it is funny how from a few fragments of bone, scientists can tell you how much hair the creature had or even from fossil samples..I have never seen a hairy fossil..have you?

That's ironic, because in my previous post I put a website that shows a lot (not all) of the transitional species we know of.

"that idea is easily debunked" the point of science is to test theories and either prove them or disprove them. Of course there are going to be ideas that aren't true in the end, but that's why scientists work, to disprove things so that they get closer to the truth.

"fossil evidence shows that creatures did not change from one species to another" can you site your source, please?

I'm not sure what feathers and scales have to do with how long it takes for a fossil to form.

if you check out the supposed transitional creatures the majority of them have been debunked once they came under the scrutiny of scientists in a number of fields...and as far as fossil evidence is concerned for there to be fossils depicting birds with their feathers intact and fish with their scales intact then they could only have formed in about a week at the most and not the many many years that the evolutionists argue they formed in..the fact that there are many many such fossils including fossils of a creature having a live birth and both mother and the new born are preserved in fossilised form shows instant fossilization which is easily explained by the account of a literal Noah's flood and the fact that these instant fossils are all over the globe adds weight to the literal idea of Noahs flood that evolutionists have a hard time explaining

Again I'm not a scientist, but I'm sure a little bit of research will get you a long way if you're willing to put in the effort. However if I were to guess (don't hold me to this, this is speculation), I'd assume that they can draw these conclusions from studying the living conditions they were in. They were unable to do things we do today, like make clothes to keep themselves warm. How else would they stay warm in cold climates?

"the majority of them have been debunked once they came under the scrutiny of scientists in a number of fields." What scientists and what fields? I'd love a link.

"for there to be fossils depicting birds with their feathers intact and fish with their scales intact then they could only have formed in about a week at the most and not the many many years that the evolutionists argue they formed in" why? Please, I'm not trying to dispute but I find your arguments are lacking any evidence. I'm providing sources for most of my claims and I'm happy to provide sources for anything I say here, but I expect the same if you want me to believe what you're saying. Otherwise I'm just supposed to take your word, but I need evidence.

"the fact that there are many many such fossils including fossils of a creature having a live birth and both mother and the new born are preserved in fossilised form shows instant fossilization" I have never heard of this happening but if you provide a source I'd be happy to check it out, because that sounds really interesting.

have done many years of research how scientists can come up with the conclusion of the amount of hair on creatures they have never seen and only found bone fragments or fossil imprints of...and how it has come about is that artists are hired to illustrate the books that these scientists put out and they put hair on the creatures that exist in the creative minds of macroevolutionist scientists...you still have not explained how the bombardier beetle could have possibly evolved

The God Abraham believed in says He spoke the universe into existence out of nothingness... Science tells us out of nothingness kaboom there it was. This same God says He took a single rib to separate the woman from the man… and science tells us a single gene is all the separates the male and female zygotes. The world’s top propellerheads say that 90% of what makes up the universe we can’t see or detect, but for their sub atomic theories to work there has to be an even larger plane of existence that we are separated from. And God tells us there is a whole other realm of existence, one we are currently exiled from. And He asks a tithe.

I’m sorry, I just don’t see how science and God conflicts. What confilcts is our understanding of them.

This gives me the impression that you've already researched these claims about science supposedly contradicting the Bible, and you know that they're wrong. As I said, there's nothing in actual science that contradicts the Bible, and by actual science I'm talking about things that are supported by evidence.

We'll do one at a time. According to the theory of evolution, life started with a single living cell and then branched off and evolved into every species of animal we have today. If this is true, then that would mean that the single cell, which reproduced asexually, evolved to have male and female reproductive organs. However, this is not backed up by any observations or experiements, not to mention that evolving male and female reproductive organs over millions of years makes no sense. You have to assume that asexual organisms evolved to have male and female reproductive organs, because there's no evidence to suggest that this is even possible, there's only assumptions.

No, I've even had evolutionists admit that fossils don't prove that something evolved. Likewise, you have no proof that these fossils evolved into one another, you just have to assume that they did. I don't have enough faith for evolution.

This also doesn't make sense. You say it took 2.5 billion years to go from single-celled to multi-celled organisms, but then it somehow miraculously took much less time to go from multi-celled organisms into "basic animals" which would be much more complex than the multi-celled organism.

I'd also like you to prove that it took 2.5 billion years to go from single-celled to multi-celled organisms. If it's never been observed, then how do you KNOW that it takes 2.5 billion years? See, this is just another thing that we have to assume is true with no evidence to support it.

Going back to the asexual to sexual transition, this is something else that doesn't make sense. You're telling me to believe that asexual reproducing organisms were developing these male and female reproductive parts over millions of years, but why would they continue to devolope something that is unfunctional and useless throughout those millions of years? According to natural selection, the parts that are useless should be dissipating, not developing.

And where is this evidence? So far, all you've said is "fossils," but you have to assume that those fossils evolved into each other, since there's no repeated experiement that confirms that such a thing is possible.

Finally, somthing we can agree on. But yet, evolutionists will fight tooth and nail to cling to this belief system despite evidence to the contrary, or the lack of evidence for the claims of evolution.

I know that, that's why I used the phrase "coupled with the big bang and abiogenesis."

Faith is not "belief without any evidence whatsoever," that's just some nonsense that denialists came up with to mock those who believe in God. Whenever the Bible talks about faith, it's talking about a reasonable faith, one that is supported with evidence, and you can look up the greek word/definition of how the Bible uses faith to verify that.

If evolution is science, then where's the evidence? Why does it always have to be assumed to be true? Why do you have to take so much of evolution on the basis of blind faith?

The reason they don't accept Jesus, is because they don't want to believe in God. They have two
choices:
1. Believe in God
2. Don't believe in God

They choose option two, because that is what is left after rejection option one. The whole
motivating factor in research, is to "prove" a big bang and evolution. Their avoidance from God's
judgement and the lake of fire depend on it. It is written:

Rom 1:21-22 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were
thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. (22) Professing
themselves to be wise, they became fools,

They reject belief in God, but the more they find, the more it points to a creator. But they still
persists in their endevors.

Science can be summed up in one statement:
2Ti 3:7 Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.

Ok, what's your point? Science isn't an absolute. There are going to be things that we do have to kind of guess, like what exactly our ancestors looked like. But we use evidence to form logical assumptions and accept that we might be wrong. Science is taking theories and testing them to either prove of disprove them. Like I said, it's not always an absolute. However that doesn't mean that they're random, out-of-the-blue guesses that can't be backed up.

I'm not sure what you mean about the beetle? Why couldn't it have evolved? Just because something is complex doesn't mean it couldn't have evolved.

Also, as I said above, if you want me to take anything you say as possibly true, you need to provide sources or evidence. I'm here with an open mind but you're not giving me any reason to believe you. Please forgive me, but you're a stranger on the internet. I can't take you at your word that you have "done many years of research".

Why do I bother providing links if you're not going to read them? I'm sorry but you're wrong. Change over time is a fact.

Your comment reminded me of this for some reason so I thought I share it with those who have not read it before.

In Christ, 1Christianwarrior316


GOD vs. SCIENCE

'Let me explain the problem science has with religion.' The atheist professor of philosophy pauses before his class and then asks one of his new students to stand.

'You're a Christian, aren't you, son?'
'Yes sir, 'the student says.

'So you believe in God?'
'Absolutely.

Is God good?'

'Sure! God's good.'

'Is God all-powerful? Can God do anything?'

'Yes'

'Are you good or evil?'

'The Bible says I'm evil.'

The professor grins knowingly. 'Aha! The Bible!’ He considers for a moment. 'Here's one for you. Let's say there's a sick person over here and you can cure him. You can do it. Would you help him? Would you try?'

'Yes sir, I would.'

'So you're good...!'

'I wouldn't say that.'

'But why not say that? You'd help a sick and maimed person if you could. Most of us would if we could. But God doesn't.'

The student does not answer, so the professor continues. 'He doesn't, does he? My brother was a Christian who died of cancer, even though he prayed to Jesus to heal him.. How is this Jesus good? Can you answer that one?'

The student remains silent.. 'No, you can't, can you?' the professor says. He takes a sip of water from a glass on his desk to give the student time to relax. 'Let's start again, young fella. Is God good?'

'Er..yes,' the student says.

'Is Satan good?'

The student doesn't hesitate on this one. 'No.'

'Then where does Satan come from?'
The student falters. 'From God'

'That's right. God made Satan, didn't he? Tell me, son. Is there evil in this world?'

'Yes, sir..'

'Evil's everywhere, isn't it? And God did make everything, correct?'

'Yes'

'So who created evil?' The professor continued, 'If God created everything, then God created evil, since evil exists, and according to the principle that our works define who we are, then God is evil.'

Again, the student has no answer. 'Is there sickness? Immorality? Hatred? Ugliness? All these terrible things, do they exist in this world?'

The student squirms on his feet. 'Yes.'

'So who created them?'

The student does not answer again, so the professor repeats his question. 'Who created them?' There is still no answer. Suddenly the lecturer breaks away to pace in front of the classroom. The class is mesmerized. 'Tell me,' he continues onto another student. 'Do you believe in Jesus Christ, son?'
The student's voice betrays him and cracks. 'Yes, professor, I do.'

The old man stops pacing. 'Science says you have five senses you use to identify and observe the world around you. Have you ever seen Jesus?'

'No sir. I've never seen Him.'

'Then tell us if you've ever heard your Jesus?'

'No, sir, I have not..'

'Have you ever felt your Jesus, tasted your Jesus or smelt your Jesus? Have you ever had any sensory perception of Jesus Christ, or God for that matter?'

'No, sir, I'm afraid I haven't.'

'Yet you still believe in him?'

'Yes'
'According to the rules of empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol, science says your God doesn't exist... What do you say to that, son?'

'Nothing,' the student replies.. 'I only have my faith.'

'Yes, faith,' the professor repeats. 'And that is the problem science has with God. There is no evidence, only faith.'

The student stands quietly for a moment, before asking a question of His own. 'Professor, is there such thing as heat?'

'Yes. ’

'And is there such a thing as cold?'
'Yes, son, there's cold too.'
'No sir, there isn't.'

The professor turns to face the student, obviously interested. The room suddenly becomes very quiet. The student begins to explain. 'You can have lots of heat, even more heat, super-heat, mega-heat, unlimited heat, white heat, a little heat or no heat, but we don't have anything called 'cold'. We can hit down to 458 degrees below zero, which is no heat, but we can't go any further after that. There is no such thing as cold; otherwise we would be able to go colder than the lowest -458 degrees. Every body or object is susceptible to study when it has or transmits energy, and heat is what makes a body or matter have or transmit energy. Absolute zero (-458 F) is the total absence of heat. You see, sir, cold is only a word we use to describe the absence of heat. We cannot measure cold. Heat we can measure in thermal units because heat is energy. Cold is not the opposite of heat, sir, just the absence of it.'

Silence across the room. A pen drops somewhere in the classroom, sounding like a hammer.

'What about darkness, professor. Is there such a thing as darkness?'

'Yes,' the professor replies without hesitation.. 'What is night if it isn't darkness?'

'You're wrong again, sir. Darkness is not something; it is the absence of something. You can have low light, normal light, bright light, flashing light, but if you have no light constantly you have nothing and it's called darkness, isn't it? That's the meaning we use to define the word. In reality, darkness isn't. If it were, you would be able to make darkness darker, wouldn't you?'

The professor begins to smile at the student in front of him. This will be a good semester. 'So what point are you making, young man?'

'Yes, professor. My point is, your philosophical premise is flawed to start with, and so your conclusion must also be flawed.'

The professor's face cannot hide his surprise this time. 'Flawed? Can you explain how?'

'You are working on the premise of duality,' the student explains... 'You argue that there is life and then there's death; a good God and a bad God. You are viewing the concept of God as something finite, something we can measure. Sir, science can't even explain a thought.' 'It uses electricity and magnetism, but has never seen, much less fully understood either one. To view death as the opposite of life is to be ignorant of the fact that death cannot exist as a substantive thing. Death is not the opposite of life, just the absence of it.' 'Now tell me, professor.. Do you teach your students that they evolved from a monkey?'

'If you are referring to the natural evolutionary process, young man, yes, of course I do.'

'Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir?'

The professor begins to shake his head, still smiling, as he realizes where the argument is going. A very good semester, indeed.

'Since no one has ever observed the process of evolution at work and cannot even prove that this process is an on-going endeavor, are you not teaching your opinion, sir? Are you now not a scientist, but a preacher?'

The class is in uproar. The student remains silent until the commotion has subsided. 'To continue the point you were making earlier to the other student, let me give you an example of what I mean..' The student looks around the room. 'Is there anyone in the class who has ever seen the professor's brain?' The class breaks out into laughter. 'Is there anyone here who has ever heard the professor's brain, felt the professor's brain, touched or smelt the professor's brain? No one appears to have done so. So, according to the established rules of empirical, stable, demonstrable protocol, science says that you have no brain, with all due respect, sir.' 'So if science says you have no brain, how can we trust your lectures, sir?'

Now the room is silent. The professor just stares at the student, his face unreadable. Finally, after what seems an eternity, the old man answers. 'I Guess you'll have to take them on faith.'

'Now, you accept that there is faith, and, in fact, faith exists with life,' the student continues. 'Now, sir, is there such a thing as evil?' Now uncertain, the professor responds, 'Of course, there is. We see it Everyday. It is in the daily example of man's inhumanity to man. It is in The multitude of crime and violence everywhere in the world. These manifestations are nothing else but evil.'

To this the student replied, 'Evil does not exist sir, or at least it does not exist unto itself. Evil is simply the absence of God. It is just like darkness and cold, a word that man has created to describe the absence of God. God did not create evil. Evil is the result of what happens when man does not have God's love present in his heart. It's like the cold that comes when there is no heat or the darkness that comes when there is no light.'

The professor sat down.
PS: the student was Albert Einstein.

Ok I'll give you evidence if you want it. I'm happy to. I only didn't want to because this is going to get us nowhere. You have your opinion and I have mine, and that's fine but I doubt either is going to change. Still, if you want evidence here it is:

The Bible says the sun revolves around the Earth. The Bible also states that the moon is a source of light. Bats are birds. The Earth is flat. The Earth is roughly 6000 years old. The Earth sits on pillars. There is no record of a global flood. People can't survive in a whale or big fish.

Feel free to argue against me, but I don't think you're going to change my mind nor I yours.

Like I've said before I'm not a scientist. However, a little research or speaking to a scientist will help clear this up for you. This is an interesting article:

All Species Evolved From Single Cell, Study Finds

It actually statistically compares the likelihood of us evolving from bacteria vs us evolving from Adam and Eve. It doesn't mention the asexual thing you touched on, but like I said a little research will go a long way. If I were to guess it's the same way anything evolved: mutations.

Accepting evolution as a rational theory for how humans came to be doesn't require faith. It really doesn't. It's taken in based on evidence. Fossil evidence might not be enough proof for you, and that's fine. However, the evidence suggesting that the organisms found in fossils evolved is pretty convincing, at least for me. The "assumption" that you're talking about isn't based on nothing. There is plenty of evidence and if you don't see it then you're just simply not looking.

Here's a website that shows the timeline of life on earth.

Exploring Life's Origins: A Timeline of Life's Evolution

Here's another great website that will educate you all about evolution, and the information is accurate:

TalkOrigins Archive: Exploring the Creation/Evolution Controversy

You're assuming here that you need to observe something to know that it's true. I did not observe George Washington becoming our first president to know it's true. I did not observe legal segregation in the United States but I know it happened. There are ways of finding things out without observation. And as far as observing evolution, we have observed evolution happening. Here's a website that shows changes occurring in E. coli in a controlled environment:

E. coli Long-term Experimental Evolution Project Site

As far as billions of years ago, we have things like fossils and radiometric dating and stratigraphy.

Asexual organisms aren't "unfunctional and useless". They thrive, in fact. It just depends on their environment, from my understanding. Again, a scientist will be able to better explain.

Sorry? I don't think I understand. You can't really experiment with evolution, unless you count the controlled one I linked to above. Evolution is a process that takes a really long time. You can't observe it during one lifetime.

There is actually plenty of evidence supporting evolution. Also evolution is not a belief system.

Fair enough.

Can you please provide this evidence?

Again there is so much evidence! I'll link a website I linked above because I think it's a really good one:

TalkOrigins Archive: Exploring the Creation/Evolution Controversy

Where does it say that??