God and Science don't mix, so don't try.

[jlay]

God exists in the supernatural realm and there is therefore no test we can do to prove or disprove god.

This is a ridiculous statement and totally unscientific. 150 years ago there was no test you could perform to measure invisible waves that are able to transmit libraries of information through our atmosphere to points all over the globe.

Even a 3rd grader can tell you that a Chevy Corvette didn't create itself. The make is evidence of a maker. How anyone can look at creation and "scientifically" say, everything came from nothing, is beyond me.

[Mannix]

I wasnt aware that "odds" and what is "probable" indicated proof of something.

You haven't studied quantum mechanics at school? Don't you remember bell theorem and why it's so important in quantum physics (actually its interpretation)?

Also, I am not sure how you could "prove" the universe came into existence without a creator when the creator could have easily caused whatever event or occurence science would use as proof.

The same way that Adam (or Alice) and Bob know that Eve is eavesdropping on their conversation (see BB84 protocol: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_cryptography)... As I described earlier on, once we will know for sure what to expect if life was the product of blind natural process we will be able to know if someone/something has been playing God or not.

[waynepii]

Even a 3rd grader can tell you that a Chevy Corvette didn't create itself. The make is evidence of a maker. How anyone can look at creation and "scientifically" say, everything came from nothing, is beyond me.

I doubt an atheist would find that argument convincing at all - I expect they would ask "how is it MORE believable that Something That Can Create Everything From Nothing, itself came from nothing (or always existed)?"

[jlay]

I doubt an atheist would find that argument convincing at all - I expect they would ask "how is it MORE believable that Something That Can Create Everything From Nothing, itself came from nothing (or always existed)?"

And what is your point? You can't "argue" people into belief no matter how convincing.

For example, if tomorrow we found a way to create ,from very simple molecules, life, we will be able to have a rough idea of the odd for this life to have come about by itself. If the chance are good, then with our knowledge of our planet, we might find that actually, life on earth was a very probable event and therefore, no need for a creator (and so no God).

That is a self-defeating argument.

If we (intelligent life) found a way to CREATE.......
That would be proof of intelligent design. To make your point, you would have to be able to observe life arising from nothing in a 100% natural environment.

[Mannix]

For example, if tomorrow we found a way to create ,from very simple molecules, life, we will be able to have a rough idea of the odd for this life to have come about by itself. If the chance are good, then with our knowledge of our planet, we might find that actually, life on earth was a very probable event and therefore, no need for a creator (and so no God).

That is a self-defeating argument.

If we (intelligent life) found a way to CREATE.......
That would be proof of intelligent design. To make your point, you would have to be able to observe life arising from nothing in a 100% natural environment.

No, not necessarily. I can find a way to create snow or make it rain. Does it means that each and every individual cloud have been designed? Obviously not. My argument still hold.

[D J Wray]

Hi guys.

In my opinion they do mix. I believe that God started evolution and then resumed after evolution had served its useful purpose.

I have created a powerpoint presentation to show exactly what I mean.

It is my opinion and it is based purely on experience. I came into the subject with an open mind. I have found that from the feedback that I have had so far that, generally speaking, the people who have commented are not open-minded. Instead they are biased attention-seekers, which is what I expected.

I suggest you don't read it if you don't have time on your hands and/or if you are biased one way or the other.

http://www.atotalawareness.com/document ... reness.pps

Regards,

D J Wray

[jerry]

In summary, the day god is proven by science is the day I become a Christian (again) however the day god is proven by science is also the day Christianity becomes irrelevant as a religion and becomes just another branch of science. This, I feel, is not really the outcome anybody wants although, thankfully, it is not a situation that will ever occur anyway.

By that same token, the day that Darwinian evolution is proven by science is the day I may become a atheist... Thankfully, it is not a situation that will ever occur anyway...

Darwinian evolution does not disprove the existence of god, there are plenty of Christians who believe in evolution so I don't know why there is so much hostility towards evolutionary theory. Also I think you will find evolution has been proved to a great degree by science. Of course this doesn't mean that it is 100% definitely correct its just the best scientific model we have at the moment given the facts we have gleaned from the earth. If something comes along in the future that disproves evolution, science will adapt much as it did when Einstein proved Newtonian mechanics only worked in certain circumstances. This is the nature of science, if something turns out to be wrong in certain circumstances it is rejected and new areas of inquiry are opened up instead of taking one point of view and then sticking your head in the sand.

Darwinian evolution requires that everything be done by purely natural forces with no help from any supernatural being. Darwinian evolution requires that there be no supernatural being, that everything started of by purely natural forces. Although Darwinian evolutionists cannot answer where these purely natural forces came from they argue that there was no help from a supernatural being. Richard Dawkins will argue that Darwinian evolution requires that there be no God.

In Christ Jesus
Jerry McDonald

[CliffsofBurton]

Even a 3rd grader can tell you that a Chevy Corvette didn't create itself. The make is evidence of a maker. How anyone can look at creation and "scientifically" say, everything came from nothing, is beyond me.

Well, a Corvette, you see, has a symbol on it that is as good as a signature. I have not seen that any type of supernatural being has scrawled his name on the earth. (Given, I have not seen the whole earth.)

[Byblos]

Well, a Corvette, you see, has a symbol on it that is as good as a signature. I have not seen that any type of supernatural being has scrawled his name on the earth. (Given, I have not seen the whole earth.)

Earth: Now you have.

[CliffsofBurton]

Thank you for proving my point.

I checked out the PowerPoint above. Pretty profound. You struck a nerve with me when you said "God is the Universe."

I have a very similar belief, that is almost the same, only slightly different.

I think, The Universe is god.

[CliffsofBurton]

Ah, Byblos, I just realized why, to me, you seem so pious and so strong in your religion.

You are a Catholic, no?

I am not being condescending. I think you are one of them who can do great things with your faith. It almost brings a tear to my eye to see such devotion.

I admire that.

[Byblos]

Thank you for proving my point.

I checked out the PowerPoint above. Pretty profound. You struck a nerve with me when you said "God is the Universe."

I said WHAT? Alcohol most definitely was involved. And a little GHB perhaps as I do not recall such nonsense coming out of my keybaord.

I have a very similar belief, that is almost the same, only slightly different.

I think, The Universe is god.

Now that's nonsense I could believe, coming out of yours. (sorry, a feable attempt at off-color humor).

Ah, Byblos, I just realized why, to me, you seem so pious and so strong in your religion.

You are a Catholic, no?

I am not being condescending. I think you are one of them who can do great things with your faith. It almost brings a tear to my eye to see such devotion.

I admire that.

Ha! Only if you knew me my friend, only if you knew me. I do, however, so want to take that as a compliment but for some reason it ended up raising the little hairs on the back of my neck (if I could be honest).

[zoegirl]

The point about the cars isnot so much the sign on the back proclaiming the type of car (let's, for instance,even ask the question how you know that the sign is designed, assuming you are an alien and know absolutely nothing about cars and car-makers).

The point is that we can look at systems annd examine their structure, their functioning, and determine conclusions about whehter their was intelligence at work in that structue and function.

[hopefulcynic]

The point about the cars isnot so much the sign on the back proclaiming the type of car (let's, for instance,even ask the question how you know that the sign is designed, assuming you are an alien and know absolutely nothing about cars and car-makers).

The point is that we can look at systems annd examine their structure, their functioning, and determine conclusions about whehter their was intelligence at work in that structue and function.

Snowflakes: Designed or not?

[Gman]

Or perhaps did the existing properties of the water molecule minus heat produce the snowflake? And the question can be reversed too.. Where do we decide that something can only be attributable to naturalism, and something else cannot?