WOW where to start ?
Bringing up "facts" about evolution not being valid does not in any way prove that God exists.
Incorrect.
The theory of evolution simply states that life(in all its current forms) evolved from something. Simple logic dictates this must be true. Even religion states that at one stage there was nothing. Out of that nothing came everything, inlcuding life. Life as we know it did not spring into existence exactly as it is today. Hence, evolution.
Now, even if you believe God created the basic lifeforms as we find them today simple observation shows evolution at work. Take a look at pretty much any doorway on a building from medieval times. You will notice it is much smaller than your average doorway today. Why is this so? Is it because they liked to duck whilst going through doors? Or is it because even in a few short hundreds of years humans have evolved to be larger than they were on average back then? This is a most basic and simple example that shows evolution at work.
The reason Darwins "conclusion" that the process of evolution must have happened by design is not taught as part of the science of evolution is because it has no confirming evidence whatsoever. It is simply his opinion.
As you say, science involves theory, observation and then conclusion. A theory can consist of anything. Observation will either prove or disprove that theory. Valid conclusions must be based on the observable facts and not drawn from nothing.
Actually I believe most people who doubt God do so because there is no verifiable evidence of God's existance and not because they believe in evolution.
As for your claim there is no proof regarding evolution, this is simply not true. Yes, some of the conclusions drawn regarding evolution have been shown to be incorrect but this does not mean the theory of evolution is incorrect.
Having said all that, I will go on record as saying I do actually believe in a "higher power" for want of a better word. It just irks me when someone uses twisted logic in an attempt to prove their point. Either for or against God or any other idea for that matter.
The thing about religion/God/spirituality/whatever concept you like is that it requires faith. Currently, any attempt to rationalise or prove the existence of God is bound to fail as we simply do not have the wherewithal to prove the existence of God. On the flip side, it is a logical impossibility to prove a negative and hence it can just as easily be said we do not have the wherewithal to disprove the existence of God. Hence the faith bit.
Some people choose to accept the concept of God on faith and others do not. Either one trying to "prove" their point is bound to fail so why waste so much time and effort?
Cheers,
PKFFW
Hmm, I'll try to start someplace with all this.
1. You stated
Bringing up "facts" about evolution not being valid does not in any way prove that God exists.
Answer: Yes I've also pointed this out in my previous post, however what it does do is prove that it's time to start looking elsewhere for the answer and not to the now disproved evidence that is still being taught.
2.You stated
The theory of evolution simply states that life(in all its current forms) evolved from something. Simple logic dictates this must be true. Even religion states that at one stage there was nothing. Out of that nothing came everything, inlcuding life. Life as we know it did not spring into existence exactly as it is today. Hence, evolution
Response: You are incorrect in your definition of evolution, in fact it's evolution that states that at one stage there was nothing and out of nothing there was something. In fact it is the evolution theory begining with the big bang theory. That states there was cosmic dust in which the larger dust particles caused the smaller cosmic dust particles to be attracted to the larger aka gravity and these particles continued over billions/trillions of years to form into one mass and this mass kept spinning and heating up and getting more and more dense until an explosion occurred and formed the universe as we know it.
So evolution miraculously states that dust just appear from nothing, no reason at all. My question is where did the cosmic dust come from, and what caused it to create gravity where there was none ? You see this evolution in it's purest form sounds almost silly when you really really look at it. Evolution suggests that from nothing came this dust, however when you consider cause and effect logic would dictate that if you had nothing before then you would still have nothing.
2a You stated:
Even religion states that at one stage there was nothing. Out of that nothing came everything, inlcuding life
Response: This is also incorrect, most religious believes who have the one God theory believe that God existed always, and that all things he created and thus logic would dictate at least according to the the science of cause and effect that you would have to have something to get something, so that would be more logical that something always existed rather then nothing being the cause of something because as I stated earlier if there was nothing you would still have nothing.This would not be logical at at all.
3 You stated:
Now, even if you believe God created the basic lifeforms as we find them today simple observation shows evolution at work. Take a look at pretty much any doorway on a building from medieval times. You will notice it is much smaller than your average doorway today. Why is this so? Is it because they liked to duck whilst going through doors? Or is it because even in a few short hundreds of years humans have evolved to be larger than they were on average back then? This is a most basic and simple example that shows evolution at work.
Response: This example is simple observation, but provides no real observed proof for example the tall man could also have other traits which allow him to live longer, produce more offsping and also perhaps simply overcome the shorter smaller man by means of overpowering him. Sort of like how man killed off the whales, but thats not proof of any evolution especially since there are a lot more people then you may know. In fact the average person is not 6ft-1in as I am but I'm considered tall, and most are not that tall.And also in many cases the kings or emperors could have dictated the size of doors in which case if they were short they would have most likely order the doors to be short.
I'm sorry but example here is just not very convincing. However you can make a simple observation that would disprove evolution very easy. If man evolved from monkey why are there still monkeys. A few link here when doing a search about the evelutionary fossil record:
Evolution Fossil Record
Human Evolution
Basically logic would dictate that if life evolved and there were these small changes which brought about larger changes to the point that a new species evolved / or created etc. Then the fossil record should have left some evidence of this behind, however after millions of supposed years of evolution there are no transitional forms which would link one species to another. In fact the fossil record continues to show that species co-existed along side of one another always in history as opposed to one after the other.Including many symbiotic relationships between species that rely on one another to survive. With symbiotic species you can't have one evolved then the other this could not happen as the one requires the other as with many of the coral reefs which require the consumption of algae by other species in order not to be overcome by the algae etc.
4. You stated:
The reason Darwins "conclusion" that the process of evolution must have happened by design is not taught as part of the science of evolution is because it has no confirming evidence whatsoever. It is simply his opinion.
Response: If that is truly the case then why is any of the Darwin theory taught at all since there is no confirming evidence whatsoever, hence the term evolution theory.And as I've pointed out the fossil record shows nothing, the evidence shows nothing.
You see it's a puzzle, lets talk about the fossil record. Lets say for example you have species A=50million years ago, Species B=100 million years ago, Species C=150 million years ago and Species E=200 million years ago, and so on. Over the years other findings are uncovered and lets say species C which was found and determined to be New C=100 million years, Now What? See the problem, you can't just take New C and put it at B, because your data for B=100 million years and you can't just move the whole fossil record around because it won't match the data for the time line.And what would you now do with old C=150 million years just throw it away and have this gap ? And new fossils are always coming up and pre-dating old findings and now the fossil record is just a mess and cannot be taken seriously at this point.
5.You stated:
As you say, science involves theory, observation and then conclusion. A theory can consist of anything. Observation will either prove or disprove that theory. Valid conclusions must be based on the observable facts and not drawn from nothing
Response: I agree and I think that is my point exactly.
6.You stated:
Actually I believe most people who doubt God do so because there is no verifiable evidence of God's existence and not because they believe in evolution.
Response:I agree partially with this, although there is verifiable evidence of God's existence many are not aware there even could be verifiable evidence of God's existence so they doubt because they are looking for tangible concrete evidence. As I've pointed out Why ? They believe on faith in evolution many do not even know the exact theory of evolution and only a partial understanding yet they believe it whole heartedly why ? They believe in evolution with no verifiable evidence of evolutions existence why not God ? which is more believable then the theory of evolution ? If someone told me that you could shred a dictionary into a million pieces and put into a box and shake it up over millions of years that it could form back into a dictionary. I would never believe that could happen in a Dectillion years. Somehow evolutionists have gotten people to believe if the universe simply had all the elements that it could be shaken up accidentally by random chance process to form into what we have today just because all the pieces were supposedly there; and added millions of years to the equation it suppose to sound believable. And scientifically this makes no sense either. You don't get a system of order from chaos, random is random without order, and order is order and begets orders.hence design.
I don't care how many millions of years you shake up it will never form a dictionary or anything else that makes any sense or has any order to it at all.
But back to the subject of verifiable evidence of God's existence. I would say you have to treat it the same as the electron theory and build the case for God's existence. For example you can't see an electron and it's still just a theory and not fact. However everything we do electronically is based off the electron theory because we see the cause and effect that occurs when you apply various substances to a current of electricity to see the effect and then study the results. Even thought we cannot see an electron, however with the microscopes out now I'm not sure but it could be possible currently, but in any case all the effects that have measured are notable, however not necessarily verifiable proof. There are still theories that suggest that the electron could be a continuous wave as oppose to a single particle of negative energy surrounding the nucleus of an atom. There are other theories along side of the electron theory equally appealing, but never used as a standard.
Anyhow tangible concrete evidence may be available to some, however with most you have to build the case and research the subject like any other subject.
7.You stated:
As for your claim there is no proof regarding evolution, this is simply not true. Yes, some of the conclusions drawn regarding evolution have been shown to be incorrect but this does not mean the theory of evolution is incorrect.
Response:What proof of evolution is there really ? I believe there is micro evolution where a species has an ability to adapt, but nothing that transforms one species into another. There is just no evidence of that at all.If there were then this would not longer be a theory, however currently it is still just a theory. And I'm sorry to say that as the evidence that has previously been claimed slowly gets disproved in fact there is a point for many that it must be discounted.In fact there is now have evidence that would indicate there is a chromosome contained within the DNA of all species that is specifically there to prevent one species from transforming into another. So this is a major Giant stumbling block for evolutionist today.It is essentially proof that evolution is an impossibility with this new findings.
I mean for example; The theory talks about after the earth formed etc. that this gelatinous gue formed. And as more elements came into contact with this gue it became a single strand of RNA (Ribonucleic acid) which is the building blocks of life and later into DNA which later slowly formed into the simple cell Amoeba and later into the complex organisms etc. This sounds so unrealistic that this could have occurred anywhere in the universe let alone on earth with no evidence at all. In fact this theory insists that no oxygen could be present in order for this to occur, however the science and study of the earth and the oldest rock formations indicate that oxygen was always present on the earth even during the formation of the oldest rock formations that exist on the earth so that would also sort of crush the RNA gue theory as well.
This theory has sooo many holes in it you can't even call it a theory it's a faith based believe with no evidence at all to support it.No different then belief in the tooth fairy.It's just more complicated I'm sorry to say. And quite embarrassed as I myself was a believer in evolution.
8. You stated:
Having said all that, I will go on record as saying I do actually believe in a "higher power" for want of a better word. It just irks me when someone uses twisted logic in an attempt to prove their point. Either for or against God or any other idea for that matter.
Response: I agree.
9.You stated:
The thing about religion/God/spirituality/whatever concept you like is that it requires faith. Currently, any attempt to rationalise or prove the existence of God is bound to fail as we simply do not have the wherewithal to prove the existence of God. On the flip side, it is a logical impossibility to prove a negative and hence it can just as easily be said we do not have the wherewithal to disprove the existence of God. Hence the faith bit.
Some people choose to accept the concept of God on faith and others do not. Either one trying to "prove" their point is bound to fail so why waste so much time and effort?
Response:I do have some agreement here on this, however as I've stated in my other responses that building the case for individual verification is possible.
A good example is Love: Lets say your mother loves you, or perhaps your father, or wife etc. How do you know ? How can you tell if they love you or not ? You can touch it, you can't really see it, however there is a seeing that is not explainable, and their actions also would indicate, but is this verifiable. Yes but perhaps only to you. However, you could not now attempt to express or proof to someone else that your mother ,father or wife love you. But you have experienced enough relationship with them and gotten to know them in a way that you do know they love you. In fact even if sometimes their actions may not indicate this or perhaps seem contrary.
So is the existence of God verifiable ? Yes ? but that would be verified by you ? And can only be verified by you and not by me.If God exists surely he would reveal himself to you if you wanted to know him.I can surely verify for myself that my wife loves me, and can provide no verifiable evidence to prove this to anyone else, although the evidence does exist. And I can discuss this subject with other who also have a wife or family that love them and surely we can congregate and discuss without any of us ever having to prove to them that this love is real in a tangible or concrete method. But it is real ? How can this be real if you can't see it or touch it ? Who cares ? It just is ? And the evidence is verifiable. But how then is it verifiable without concrete proof ? The answer is that it's all about building the case. And there is lots of ways of looking at things, but to say that trying to prove there is a God or lack of will fail I don't agree with that. Because there is so much evidence of creation it's a matter of looking around and some research.
Lots more to discuss on this, but I think I've answered adequately.
Sorry for the long winded response, but it's a long winded subject for sure.
I hope I've answered adequately and without offense
Best of everything and Happy trading.
O..K... then......
