Evidence for God from Science

Thinker wrote:Yes, more please, MORE disinformation, bring it on, more, More, MORE, BRING IT!!!!!!!!

Disinformation? How so? The quotation is real.

Afterall, I provided a source (i) showing it is genuine and (ii) allowing anyone to check the context at a click of the mouse.

EDIT: I see you changed your post

Question: But you are clear, under your definition, the definition that sweeps in intelligent design, astrology is also a scientific theory, correct?
Behe: Yes, that's correct.

Source. (pdf file, approx 200KB)

This such and such must have a common ancestor, or such and such is the common ancestor is not apparent from these bones This conclusion is based on genetic and phylogenetic analysis. ... This conclusion is supported by genetic and phylogenetic analysis. ... This hypothesis is suported by both gene...

It seems that you must then find evolutionists to be more credible. Is that because of evolutions NEW place in science? Newness is not a factor, no. It is for the reasons outlined. This is completely false Blob. Also false. Perhaps. But can you give me a clear example where a creationist has expose...

what have you found in your lives that make you believe evolution? For me perhaps one of the most notable factors of the evolution-creationism debate is the integrity of practitioners on both sides. Both creationism and evolution have a history of fraud, error, mistake and dishonesty. Such is human...

Is it really possible for any person to come to a conclusion regarding a particular belief devoid of any affectivity, disposition, or bias? I don't see it is possible. So I don't see that the issue is so much "why" or "what causes" one to accept or reject evolution, or any other...

you can't explain irreducibly complex machines Natural selection is not intended to explain man-made constructions such as machines. you can't explain the Cambrian explosion The Cambrian explosion took several million years, which more than adequate time for changes in organisms to occur. you can't...

Yes that is right, Ray, but I don't feel that really addresses Deborah's specific point about why you can't store and use your own blood.

Some information about the JW position on blood transfusions generally is available here.

This postulating a "break down" is only one side of the coin. Others believe there is no need for break down since it has been shown mathematically that within at least 10 dimensions, physics (and general relativity) can hold back right to the beginning. ... If we don't know (since we wer...

In quantum mechanics we can't get beyond Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. Does that make quantum theory in crisis also. There are simply limits to what we can learn about the reality we live in. The Big Bang math predicted the shape of the backgroun radiation waves almost perfectly. Big Bang is ...

1) As long as Einstein's general theory of relativity is true, the universe must have a beginning 2) Einstein's general theory has been put under the microscope for over half a century. 3) Big Bang theory has made predictions that came true later on. 4) Because something isn't "dusted and show...

Big Bang in crisis. That's funny. I'll take it you consider the inflationary model of our observable universe to be done, dusted and 100% correct then? No, blob was calling for an impossibility to make a conclusion-an infinite amount of evidence. And what's wrong with that? It's impossible and woul...

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:No, blob was calling for an impossibility to make a conclusion-an infinite amount of evidence.

And what's wrong with that?

Cutting edge science is always speculative. Note that it is the theoretical cosmologists themselves saying "well we really don't know and can't test our ideas have reservations about our own work but we'll keep plugging away." However there is good reason to speculate because for all the p...

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:That's nonsense, not science.

How so?