Proof of Gods existence and questions science cannot answer

I think you will find that science in fact has not disproved religion. for that matter God or a universal being that created everything. Many have there logic and facts mixed up for example.

Evolutionary theory can be broken down into 2 parts[/color
[color=red]Micro evolution the adaptation of populations through natural selection is well-proven (variation of a species, stronger fly, bigger wings camo color.)

"Macro-evolution" - change beyond the species level, is "a research topic"(what half of people think, that humans evolved from ape)

Moth Evolution
Study took place in industrial England
Start with mostly light-colored moths, a few dark
Light moths hidden on light trees, dark eaten
Industrial pollution turns trees dark
Now dark moths hidden, light eaten
Population shifted from mostly white to mostly dark
Start with moths, end with moths!
If trees had turned blue from polluting dye, would blue moths have developed?
Natural selection here, but no evolution!

The very fact that evolving animals brings us back the the first cause principle. Who created the first living organism or chemical gas? None other than a being with intelligence who by His very existence is the first cause of everything. And none can refute this piece of evidence for it even undermines science.

ANYONE ANSWER?

Actually, the moths example is a fake. The photos were shown to have been staged.

But this does not mean evolution is a fake at all. Evolution is very, very real - you have, I am sure, heard of fossils.

As in horses, there's an example. Horses started off about the size of moderate-sized dogs. They had four or five toes. Little things, probably cute. Then, as time went on, horses that ran faster were more likely to survive to breeding age and reproduce. Those horses tended to have three toes that hit the ground, and the other one or two hung to each side (much like a dewclaw on a dog). These horses were also larger, with longer legs. So the four- and five-toed horses could not compete for food and mates, or they just didn't live too long, as predators were more likely to catch them. Then, even bigger horses, with longer legs, started to appear, due to genetic mutation. They could run faster than the smaller horses. And, they had one large toe with two others hanging on either side. So these horses were more likely to survive to breeding age. And the smaller horses began to die out. Finally, a genetic mutation resulted in a horse being born with only one toe, with a large toenail which we call a hoof. That horse was the largest of them all, with long legs and a quick stride. That horse was most likely to survive to sexual maturity. It could eat more grass, kick at and outrun many (but not all) predators, and live long enough to breed and pass on its genes to a new generation. Hence, it survived while slower, smaller horses did not. Now, I'm simplifying matters. It wasn't that perfect or in as straight a line as that, but it did happen.

See: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/horses/horse_evol.html

By the way, science and religion are vastly different things. Science should not be used to try to "disprove" religion any more than religion should be used to try to "disprove" science. There's room in the world for both, so long as we don't confuse one with the other.

Since natural selection is the mechanism by which evolution works, I'm not sure how one can have natural selection without evolution.


Pure question begging. Who says that anything was "created" by anybody?

As I mentioned to you in another thread, Dragon, the so-called proofs of the existence of God offered by Aquinas are not really proofs at all...and they are not especially good arguments.

If you want to "believe" or guess that there is a God...no problem. But I doubt seriously that you will ever get beyond that point.

The evidence of Evolution is almost hard not to beleive. There is the almost undisputable evidence of fossils transitioning from apes into primitive Australopitheicus, into homo Habilis, into Homo Erectus, into Homo Sapiens, into Homo Sapiens Sapiens, i mean. Evolutions is right under your nose.

You know what would be awesome? If scientists would get up off their asses (sarcasm ) and just breed some fruit flies to the point that they can't breed with what they came from.
That is the only line I think you'd accept.

But on that note, what about mules?

Dragon,

I agree with half of your argument. Your error is that you are confusing scientific questions with religious/philosophical questions.

You are absolutely right that science has never proven that there isn't a God. Even with the assumption that modern science is correct, it is perfectly possible that there is a Creator who designed and planned it all.

Whether or not there is a God is a religious/philosophical question. Science has a system of "proof" based on observation, testing and mathematical reason that is very effective at giving insights on the laws that govern our Universe.

God, by definition as the "creator" is outside the laws of our Universe. This means that as important as questions about God are, these questions must be addressed using faith and philosophy and our understanding of meaning, rather than science. It is impossible to develop a set of "laws" governing God. It is impossible to run experiments and God does not submit to mathematical analysis.

Evolution is a scientific question. Scientists developed the rules of evolution by making observations, analyzing evidence, looking for alternative explanations testing their conclusions and public discussion. Evolution has been tested using many different types of evidence, from fossil record to DNA studies.

Evolution has been accepted as Science by the vast majority of the scientific community.

My suggestion is to keep the two questions separate. Questions about God are philosophical questions and a philosophical discussion is appropriate.

Questions about Evolution are scientific questions. They have been discussed in depth by scientists and the debate about whether evolution is scientifical correct are pretty much done.

Just because Evolution has been found correct by Science doesn't have to threaten your your faith in God.

They are different questions altogether.

some however, will assert that the existence of God is in fact a scientific matter; all religions claim that their God performs miracles in the universe, and if this is the case then God would have left a mark as it were somewhere in the universe. This is what some people (Dawkins) believe to be the case.

You are all getting stuck on this silly science vs God argument. There is no such argument. God does not exist so what is there to argue about?

Find or present one shred of evidence or proof of God and we can discuss it. Until then, it's all rubbish. In the history of this planet no one has yet shown anything to indicate a God or Gods exist. They are creations of man's need for security. Like Linus's blanket.

We've got the picture MC. You are into the politics of meaninglessness.

It's a very narrow and limited subject and you can exhaust all its meaning with an hour in front of a cage of monkeys if you are observant enough.

I prefer not the question: Does God exist?; I prefer the assertion: God IS existence.

Anyone who doesn't believe in natural selection/evolution should try to sleep under their great grandmother's short quilt, or walk through an 1850's farm house without ducking to go through the doorways.

or for that matter... try being a 6-foot tall person and try to adjust the seat in a 1960's pickup truck so that your legs can effectively work the pedals.

Ever know an ugly nerd that didn't get laid, or a hot sexy person that did get laid? That is the basic fundamental process. Humans have elevated it to ridiculous extremes, but the bottom line is this: the more desirable mate will have the greatest chance of procreating and passing on his/her genetic code to successive generations. Period.