Evidence for God from Science

One would be excused for thinking that certain administrators of this site are not as secure in their beliefs as they make out. "I believe because the alternative does not offer me the comforting guarantees" is not true faith.

Rollingstone, Your statement is unclear. Are you saying arguing for the sake of God is somehow a bad thing? The bible says to test all and to stand firmly in our beliefs but to speak using words that can be understood. I am so grateful for the time the administrators spend on here and can say their words have comforted me more than a time or two.

robyn hill wrote:Rollingstone, Your statement is unclear. Are you saying arguing for the sake of God is somehow a bad thing?

No, not at all. I respect anyone's right to hold their beliefs and to practise their faith (as long as it doesn't negatively impact any other living being). I also respect anyone's right to argue in favour of their beliefs... or non-beliefs.

RollingStone wrote:

robyn hill wrote:Rollingstone, Your statement is unclear. Are you saying arguing for the sake of God is somehow a bad thing?

No, not at all. I respect anyone's right to hold their beliefs and to practise their faith (as long as it doesn't negatively impact any other living being). I also respect anyone's right to argue in favour of their beliefs... or non-beliefs.

You stated -that you respect anyone's right to hold their beliefs and to practise their faith (as long as it doesn't negatively impact any other living being).

Therefore, what about your beliefs negatively impacting other living beings?
-
-
-

B. W. wrote:You stated -that you respect anyone's right to hold their beliefs and to practise their faith (as long as it doesn't negatively impact any other living being).

Therefore, what about your beliefs negatively impacting other living beings?

Simply holding beliefs cannot negatively impact upon others. Acting upon those beliefs, however, certainly can.

As a matter of curiosity, my best man is a Christian. In fact, he is a fundamentalist YEC. We have a fun time discussing this.

RollingStone wrote:

B. W. wrote:You stated -that you respect anyone's right to hold their beliefs and to practise their faith (as long as it doesn't negatively impact any other living being).

Therefore, what about your beliefs negatively impacting other living beings?

Simply holding beliefs cannot negatively impact upon others. Acting upon those beliefs, however, certainly can.

As a matter of curiosity, my best man is a Christian. In fact, he is a fundamentalist YEC. We have a fun time discussing this.

Are you not, therefore, acting upon your belief by posting these here?
-
-
-

Rolling stone, how on earth did you get that the administrators ever implied their belief in God is because the alternative doesn't offer comfort??? I don't see how you came to this inference.

Kynaros,
If your still here:

The Drake equation was made up of a bunch of guesses back then. Now we have a lot of information to put it to the test.
See this article
http://www.reasons.org/does-probability-eti-1

Dr. Ross' most recent list of probability estimates with references
http://www.reasons.org/links/hugh/research-notes
Part 3
Requirements to sustain intelligent physical life in a globally distributed high-technology civilization — less than 1 chance in 101032 exists that even one such life-support body would occur anywhere in the universe without invoking divine miracles.

Evolution challenges
Avalon and Cambrian explosions pose serious problems for evolutionists. There are no fossil ancestors for the creatures found within these two explosions. The Avalon phyla did not evolve into the Cambrian ones. In fact most were extinct by the Cambrian. There are good reasons why no ancestors existed. The oceans were too salty. There was not enough oxygen, molybdenum or phosphate and earth had just come out of a deep freeze (snowball earth). Where did all the new phyla come from? Molecular clocks, based on evolution say that animals should have evolved well into the pre-Cambrian. So much for evolutions predictions. Sounds like the first part of Day/age five "Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures."

Research published in Science in 2002 showed that in less than 30,000 years after the last Triassic taxa, large Jurassic theropod dinosaurs appeared. In less than 100,000 years of the Triassic-Jurassic boundary, dinosaurian diversity reached a stable maximum. After the mass extinction of Triassic taxa, where did the Jurassic dinos come from? And how did they appear so fast?

Fossils and DNA tell two different evolutionary stories. Which are you going to believe? Virtually all "evidence" for evolution is from fossils, yet DNA is the new big thing in evolution.
http://www.pnas.org/content/97/9/5003.f ... 39a924d3ae
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 084304.htm

Junk DNA is being found to have more and more functions, so evolutionists claiming that it is left over junk from evolution is making less and less sense.