Evidence for God from Science

Well as I said in my original post, other cosmologists tried to locate the "evidence" that Penrose "found" and so far they are not seeing the same thing, I think they were even saying that what Penrose is seeing is just digital noise, but future tests of the background radiation ...

Yes, I tend to favor the BVG theorem for it's theistic friendly implications. What I'm still somewhat nervous about is if Penrose's cyclic model turns out to have good evidence and ends up being very probable what would this do to the cosmological argument for God's existence? Because from what litt...

Hey, I was just checking to see if there are any updates on the supposed evidence that Roger Penrose found that he thinks supports a cyclic universe. I think it surrounds the "discovery" or electromagnetic rings in various places. One of the things I saw late last year was that other indep...

I don't know, you must have a sixth sense, cause I sure don't see it.

I don't know. I think Vickers is telling the truth. I mean, we all go through doubts many times. I'm sure just about everyone here has doubted God's existence of have doubted their salvation from time to time. The guy is just doubting his creation views right now, he'll get over it.

I think the tail "structures" were proven to not be actual tails but some kind of mutational structure with no bone. I might be wrong, but I think that's what I read somewhere.

True, natural selection by itself is not evolution especially in the biological sense. It is mutation and natural selection. Now in considering the first life forms and the first dna, I could easily see it adapting to a specific environment. But I'm unsure if the first proteins and dna would be able...

Hmm, after reading through all that it looks like they respond by saying that natural selection is a chemical process as well as a biological process. So does this seem to be a good way to get around the problem of information for evolutionists? And do they have any direct evidence that shows that n...

Thank you all for your insight.

Greetings everyone, I was wanting to briefly talk about Stephen Meyer's information argument against darwinism and or naturalism. He lists the argument in his book Signature in the Cell. He talks about how current naturalistic explanations such as chance, natural selection, and chemical reactions ar...

Hey guys, I was wondering, from what I've heard about Stephen Hawking as far as what he thinks caused the universe to come into existence. He either adheres to the multiverse and to M-Theory. My question is what is M-Theory? How does it work. I mean, does anyone here know how to explain it in laymen...

Your analogy really does help explain why everything then appears to be designed as well as why there are such a wide variety of creatures. Now since you don't currently hold to naturalism and to evolution in a naturalistic sense, at this point, why are you not a naturalist? I guess I just had one ...

According to the model....it certainly doesn't know....random mutations would produce multiple proteins, therefore multiple structures, some of which fit better with the environment than others. It doesn't know....one appropriate analogy would be poker hands. IT's not that evolution knows which han...

Hey there guys, I was wanting to try and participate in on the discussion. I was wanting to ask you Serapah what your top reasons for believing darwinian evolution are. I've always have wanted to ask people who hold to evolution what their main reasons are, but since so many of them are the hateful...

Thank you, that's good, I"ll explain that to him next time I run into him.