Evidence for God from Science

Right off the top, there's an error in your link. While theropod dinosaurs are indeed almost certainly the ancestors of birds, there is a small, but still possible chance that both dinosaurs and birds had a common thecodont ancestor. This is the argument of ornithologist Alan Feduccia, citing thecod...

exactly. the intricacy of the laws of the nature that science discovers does not disprove the existence of god, but rather describes the extremely complex method of his creation. Understand that nothing in science is an attempt to disprove God. Nor can it disprove God, even hypothetically. All it s...

Perhaps you don't know what "circular reasoning" is. After all, if you suppose it's just a bird (or dinosaur), you might find that there are not dinosaur (or bird) features. And that would confirm your hypothesis. On the other hand, if there a considerable number of each, it would invalida...

Looks like you do not quite know where the RCC stands on the topic of evolution. I think I do. Let's see... But if it's not a doctrine of the church, how can you assert that the majority of the members of that church believes it? It is the doctrine of the Church that evolution is consistent with Ch...

From his book is, of course, always some risk involved in accepting data reported in newspapers and journals. HE explicitly more than this one occasion warned the reader that many of these are unsubstantiatied. I guess it was only fair of him to warn his readers that his information might be dishon...

Hey bucko, Your the one making up things about evolution with no evidence that it actually occoured. As you learned earlier, that is false. You've seen a great deal of evidence. But if you want you can make more abstract claims about eovlutionary constructs without evidence if you think it would di...

Ernst Mayr has a powerfrlul bias and I thinks he's a bit senile; he's around a hundred years old and says anyone who doesn't believe evolution is an idiot, I wouldn't listen to much he says. If he's saying things to you, it would be remarkable. He's dead. He was, however one of the greatest minds o...

What you shouldn't do is make up things and attribute them to God.

That makes it harder to bring others to Him.

ACtually it isn't my site, IT is a book written by Dr. Erich von Fange is a retired professor from Concordia College in Ann Arbor Michigan. He is an educator with over 40 years of teaching experience. And yet he didn't know that those tracks had been exposed as a hoax by YE creationists? Amazing. H...

Oh Yes. I see, I was also claiming the people that believe that things cannot be explained simply through the naturalistic evolution of science. The great majority of evolutionists agree with you on that. However, as I said, creationists are a minority, even in America. IT seems that the theistic e...

Hmmm... did you even read the results? 1991: 47% creationist 49% evolutionist (mostly theistic) By 1997: 44% creationist, 49% evolutionist (again mostly theistic) http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm Here's more good news: By 2004, it was 45% creationist, 51% evolutionist (again mostly the...

One of them I do know about. I've even visited the site. It is ironic that the Paluxy "man tracks" hoax was debunked by Young Earth creationists. "At about the same time Taylor was doing his filming a group of investigators from Loma Linda University came to investigate the "man ...

I'm sorry, but the RCC does not recognize the ToE unconditionally. Yehren observes: Neither do scientists. They only accept what the evidence says, and that is conditional on new evidence not changing it. That's a good thing. Within the exisiting hypothesis, which they state as fact. Yehren Observe...

(Yehren observes that Dawkins is not a great scientist) A great SCientists si one that adopts all the currently accepted knowledge and doesn't cause a stir by thinking independantly. In fact, all the great scientists have become regarded as great for doing exactly that. They stir up controversy, sho...

I object to the fact that the prescence of certian fossils in paticular groups or formations is being used in conjunction with unproven assumptions as evidence that the world is of any paticular age. You'll be happy to know then, that it doesn't work that way. We can only infer the sequence of ages...