Evidence for God from Science

Really? Say the whole universe slowly started freezing over tomorrow, until 24 hours later it is covered in ice and all life is dead. Now what if that happened the day after tomorrow? Or a week later? You probably get the point. The implication of this, regardless of when it happens, is that it doe...

* Drops post into thread * Hi! As the new Agnostic(Atheistic leanings) about the place, saw this thread and thought I'd at least offer m'self as a sounding board. :) So...to the fine Ukranianlys, my answer (In a simple form) would be 'No'. It's here. It's been around for a while and eventually (On ...

I feel like if someone is truly an athiest, that they would be a heartless, selfish person. I mean if there's no God and life is temporary why not just please yourself, without caring about other people? I mean they believe they are going to die and nothing will happen, some atheists claim they wis...

I think radical positions in general tend to become more popular: 1. People avoid complex decisions. http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_ariely_asks_are_we_in_control_of_our_own_decisions.html 2. Positions that are less radical are usually also more complex, so holding a less radical position requires maki...

It probably would be unkind to note how many people YEC representations of the BIble and Science drive away from Christ, so I won't. ;) As someone already said though, it would be nice of them to call their position YEC, not " mostly " biblical creationism and also creationism in general.

That typically boils down to a "creation story/religious view vs. big bang theory/science" problem. How is Biblical creation (or any creation theory for that matter) against the Big Bang theory? And how can anything be against science? Science is simply a method. The way I see it, based o...

I came accross this website http://www.expelledexposed.com/index.php/the-truth which kind of discredits the movie scientifically and intellectually as well as it accuses the movie of twisting truth as well as telling only facts which strengthen their point. It is claimed to be biased propaganda. I ...

Ivellious wrote: That typically boils down to a "creation story/religious view vs. big bang theory/science" problem.

How is Biblical creation (or any creation theory for that matter) against the Big Bang theory? And how can anything be against science? Science is simply a method.

Murray wrote:I'm not sure how a deist , such as einstein, is deeply religious?

Newton on the other hand was a devout christian.

He did seem to value religion a lot, despite being a deist. In any case, he was more religious than Dawkins seems to think.

Repulsing. These kinds of things are what give Christianity and religions in general a bad name. I can already see atheists comparing these emotionally crazed people to the average Christian.

Craig holds to an A-theory of time and he seems to think if the Lorentzian interpetation of the Special Theory of Relativity is true that would refute the B-theory of time. Which would support his arguments for Christianity, so it's a good thing.

Intelligent life can't exist unless God created it. He may or may not have created aliens. That is all.

I don't think anyone objects to the other kinds.

Yeah, theism includes Deism, but Deism doesn't include theism so when most people say theism they are talking about a god who has revealed himself to mankind (like the Christian god).

http://www.nature.com/news/2009/090513/full/news.2009.471.html An elegant experiment has quashed a major objection to the theory that life on Earth originated with molecules of RNA. John Sutherland and his colleagues from the University of Manchester, UK, created a ribonucleotide, a building block ...