Evidence for God from Science

This blog sums up the gravity point of view - short and too the point...

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/201 ... _circ.html
-
-
-

By the power of gravity I command that these stones bring forth life... Life.. Do you hear me??

The assertion that matter exists because of gravity is like saying cars exist because of highways or that 1's and 0's exist because of computers.

Gman wrote:By the power of gravity I command that these stones bring forth life... Life.. Do you hear me??

nice....

warhoop wrote:The assertion that matter exists because of gravity is like saying cars exist because of highways or that 1's and 0's exist because of computers.

And alas.... the frustration of science, they make things up that don't make sense and then accuse us of doing just that, when in reality we don't do such a thing.... and of course there is "logic" and "reasoning" in their ideas, but when our ideas arise they are not logical or reasonable, and are somehow less scientific, and yet their ideas are not scientific at all........ why am I even getting into this, lol it is just going to make me rant about the inconsistencies!!!

AWESOME MOVIE!!! "It's Frahnkensteen"

there are so many quotes that are classic.

zoegirl wrote:AWESOME MOVIE!!! "It's Frahnkensteen"

there are so many quotes that are classic.

Put on the ritz...

Cracks me all the time...
-
-
-

It seems to me that Hawking says a lot of things. Until he offers a proof and that proof is peer reviewed, any statement he makes is well developed conjecture.

"atheism - the belief that there was nothing, and nothing happened to nothing, and then nothing magically exploded for no reason, creating everything, and then a bunch of everything magically rearranged itself for no reason whatsoever into self-replicating bits which then turned into dinosaurs. Makes perfect sense."

derrick09 wrote:Wow, I really didn't see this one coming. Haven't scientists tried to use this idea before? Let's see if any of you all plan on reading Hawking's book let me know what kind of evidence he uses to back up this claim. I remember William Lane Craig saying during the time when Richard Dawkins was real popular that origionaly before Dawkins came along Stephen Hawking with his imaginary time ideas were some of the most absurd things that have been said by scientists, but Craig said since then, Dawkins has surpassed Hawking. But now with this new idea from Hawking, he may retake his place. But anyway, if there is anything to this turns out to hold any water, let me know. Thanks and God bless.

Greetings fellow aliens and strangers in this world.

I was stunned today when I found this at NPR.

There is a poll they are taking in their Two-Way section, I don't think it matters much but I'm encouraging people to go their and vote on whether you think Hawking is right or wrong.

Aside from people walking around talking about Nature as in, Mother Nature, without thinking of that as expressing a pagan god, now they have made the Universe the Creator. Did anybody else notice the word change there?

Abiogenesis is one of the reasons Darwinism was a lost cause, until it was resurrected by Neo-Darwinians. I believe Europe is the only place where Darwinism is defending by Academia. Stephen Jay Gould didn't have much nice to say about NeoDarwinists, but then he now knows the truth. Yeah, he died and there is no question in his mind now.

Gotta go. First blush at forum here. I would have read all the pages before posting but today I do not have the time. I'll be back.

May all who walk by the rule of the new creation receive mercy and peace from God, as He promised.

your fellow suffering servant,
gralan
aka gregory alan

Welcome Mr. Alan.

Anybody up for a roll in the hay?

werewolf?

"there wolf. there castle"

but Jlay, you must say it like zis..."Hello. vould Anyvun like a roll in ze hay?"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mvSPBu7ajuA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QLTdQG1S ... re=related

Well let's see do you know when we will have an official word on whether or not Hawkings claims have been refuted? I know on the surface and from the internet articles it certainly looks like it will be refuted but can we really be sure right now since we don't have all his studies and evidence that he may or may not have to support these claims? I know it sounds like a cue to go buy his stupid book, but I"m interested in hearing from any apologist that has access either to his book or to his arguments and studies and see if there is anything to them. On facebook, I've been seeing things (they may or may not be rumors, hard to tell at the moment) but Hawking may be claiming that our universe is like a vacuum or something to that effect. I don't know how that would somehow show that the universe created itself but I guess I'll wait and see. I'm fixing to listen to Hugh Ross's take on the whole deal. But anyway, thanks and God bless.

I dont think it really does matter because either way there will always be an inescapable question of first causation. It will always be there. Science will always do everything it can to discover how the universe works and what could have started it but they will always have the problem of first cause.

Sadly...and I mean this is really sad...is that the majority of anything ever mass released in terms of theory or books seems to only be coming from atheists. yes you will have the few papers and articles from creationists or ID proponents. But this isnt going to matter.

A godless view of the universe sells. With God all questions are answered or can be in time. With God you can only discover his handywork. With atheist science you will only discover Gods handywork but you will never answer all the questions as long as you refuse to "let a supernatural foot get in the door" as Ive heard some scientists call it. Or if you claim to have all the answers like apparently Hawking has done then you are going to wind up with logical egg on your face.

The problem is this. If Hawkins view is as simple as it sounds in these press releases then Im sure the science behind it will all sound fantastic. This is like Bart Ehrman in his Misquoting Jesus books. It sounds and looks good. People think he really dismantles the Bible. But it was all very shaky. The general populus who even know who Hawking is will jump on the "hes a brilliant man" bandwagon. It will be one more triumph, especially for the new atheism, to have in their arsenal against God.

I could go on all day but I will leave you with this...its a comment from a user on richard dawkins website about Hawking and his findings.

"If Hawking says there's no god, that's good enough for me! The maths are intimidating, but as compared with the "reasoning" that says "there must be a creator for all this to exist" it is actually so much simpler, and therefore more probable, to respond "no, just gravity"."

"If Hawking says there's no god, that's good enough for me! The maths are intimidating, but as compared with the "reasoning" that says "there must be a creator for all this to exist" it is actually so much simpler, and therefore more probable, to respond "no, just gravity"."

Thank you for sharing that. So much for "reason".

Besides the bad science, it's also sad to see how Occam's Razor is consistently misused and horribly misapplied by atheists.

narnia4 wrote:
Besides the bad science, it's also sad to see how Occam's Razor is consistently misused and horribly misapplied by atheists.

not that it really works for them..... yeah seeing as with Occam's Razor the simplest answer is most likely the correct one..... that would mean God, being the simplest answer, is the most likely answer to how the universe came into being. Not to mention they have no reason, scientifically, to try and disprove God. Let's look at the real reason here, they are doing it because they want to fulfill an agenda. They want to appear as gods themselves and to have all the answers and "hope" so that people will look to them, and fund them, and basically worship them. What was that whole thing with pride and arrogance when "the stupid one" fell. he wanted to be God, and so man kind is following in wake. So that pretty much explains it to me. Scientists are out to be their own god, and remove the need for ours, for their own purposes. See we witness because our faith tells us too, we want to share the good news of Jesus the Christ with the world so they can all have salvation in Him. But they think that if there is a God that science will not progress, and they are wrong, they believe that we would shun science, when in reality God wants us to explore and find out the workings of His creation. So basically, they are paranoid and want control.