Evidence for God from Science

Audie wrote:

RickD wrote:

Audie wrote:
You dont need to know the origin of the universe etc, to be able to do theory in other fields of science, you dont even need to know the origin of cars to study how cars work.

But you'd be a complete moron to believe a car came into existence completely on its own without a designer and builder.

What does that have to do with the validity of ToE?

So ToE doesn't fisprove God?

Storyteller wrote:

Audie wrote:

RickD wrote:

Audie wrote:
You dont need to know the origin of the universe etc, to be able to do theory in other fields of science, you dont even need to know the origin of cars to study how cars work.

But you'd be a complete moron to believe a car came into existence completely on its own without a designer and builder.

What does that have to do with the validity of ToE?

So ToE doesn't fisprove God?

Heavens no, but the data that goes into shows it is extremely improbable that the genesis account is accurate, if taken literally.

Audie wrote:

RickD wrote:

Audie wrote:
You dont need to know the origin of the universe etc, to be able to do theory in other fields of science, you dont even need to know the origin of cars to study how cars work.

But you'd be a complete moron to believe a car came into existence completely on its own without a designer and builder.

What does that have to do with the validity of ToE?

Nothing. But if you do believe in evolution, you must have thought about how life got here in the first place, haven't you?

Audie wrote:

Storyteller wrote:

Audie wrote:

RickD wrote:

Audie wrote:
You dont need to know the origin of the universe etc, to be able to do theory in other fields of science, you dont even need to know the origin of cars to study how cars work.

But you'd be a complete moron to believe a car came into existence completely on its own without a designer and builder.

What does that have to do with the validity of ToE?

So ToE doesn't fisprove God?

Heavens no, but the data that goes into shows it is extremely improbable that the genesis account is accurate, if taken literally.

Yes, if you believe the data/evidence shows evolution, then a concrete and literal interpretation of Genesis is out.

But if the evidence doesn't show evolution is true (as a complete theory, including single celled life to sentient man), then a literal* interpretation of Genesis is possible.

*literal as in a literal old earth interpretation. Not concrete and literal as in a young earth interpretation.(although some YECs do believe the evidence points to a young earth).

RickD wrote:

Audie wrote:

RickD wrote:

Audie wrote:
You dont need to know the origin of the universe etc, to be able to do theory in other fields of science, you dont even need to know the origin of cars to study how cars work.

But you'd be a complete moron to believe a car came into existence completely on its own without a designer and builder.

What does that have to do with the validity of ToE?

Nothing. But if you do believe in evolution, you must have thought about how life got here in the first place, haven't you?

Im sure everyone who bothers to think at all has wondered about that.

I personally favour the spontaneous origin of life, over it needing to be kick started.

Or, if kick started, that it would have been at the very simplest level.

Audie wrote:

RickD wrote:

Audie wrote:

RickD wrote:

Audie wrote:
You dont need to know the origin of the universe etc, to be able to do theory in other fields of science, you dont even need to know the origin of cars to study how cars work.

But you'd be a complete moron to believe a car came into existence completely on its own without a designer and builder.

What does that have to do with the validity of ToE?

Nothing. But if you do believe in evolution, you must have thought about how life got here in the first place, haven't you?

Im sure everyone who bothers to think at all has wondered about that.

I personally favour the spontaneous origin of life, over it needing to be kick started.

Or, if kick started, that it would have been at the very simplest level.

Spontaneous origin of life? Is that life comes from non-life?

Yes

Audie wrote:Yes

If you believe that, I don't ever want to see you complaining about anything anyone else says here.

Spontaneous life from non-life is the most ridiculous thing ever. With your reliance on science, frankly I cannot understand how you could believe that. Other than you just refuse to believe in God.


I really think you need to think about what you're saying.

RickD wrote:

Audie wrote:Yes

If you believe that, I don't ever want to see you complaining about anything anyone else says here.

Spontaneous life from non-life is the most ridiculous thing ever. With your reliance on science, frankly I cannot understand how you could believe that. Other than you just refuse to believe in God.


I really think you need to think about what you're saying.

Advice better taken than given

Audie wrote:

RickD wrote:

Audie wrote:Yes

If you believe that, I don't ever want to see you complaining about anything anyone else says here.

Spontaneous life from non-life is the most ridiculous thing ever. With your reliance on science, frankly I cannot understand how you could believe that. Other than you just refuse to believe in God.


I really think you need to think about what you're saying.

Advice better taken than given

You do realize spontaneous generation is obsolete, don't you?

RickD wrote:

Audie wrote:

RickD wrote:

Audie wrote:Yes

If you believe that, I don't ever want to see you complaining about anything anyone else says here.

Spontaneous life from non-life is the most ridiculous thing ever. With your reliance on science, frankly I cannot understand how you could believe that. Other than you just refuse to believe in God.


I really think you need to think about what you're saying.

Advice better taken than given

You do realize spontaneous generation is obsolete, don't you?

Please enlarge on what you mean by that.

Audie wrote:

RickD wrote:

Audie wrote:

RickD wrote:

Audie wrote:Yes

If you believe that, I don't ever want to see you complaining about anything anyone else says here.

Spontaneous life from non-life is the most ridiculous thing ever. With your reliance on science, frankly I cannot understand how you could believe that. Other than you just refuse to believe in God.


I really think you need to think about what you're saying.

Advice better taken than given

You do realize spontaneous generation is obsolete, don't you?

Please enlarge on what you mean by that.

Enlarge? Ok. Here it is enlarged.

Scientifically, life cannot come from non-life.

"Scientifically, life cannot come from non life."

On what do you base that statement? That was what I was asking for when I wondered if you could enlarge on the idea.

Audie wrote:"Scientifically, life cannot come from non life."

On what do you base that statement?

A simple google search.

Spontaneous generation isn't possible, but give it billions of years, and call it abiogenesis, and it's true.

RickD wrote:

Audie wrote:"Scientifically, life cannot come from non life."

On what do you base that statement?

A simple google search.

Spontaneous generation isn't possible, but give it billions of years, and call it abiogenesis, and it's true.

If its not possible, you have given no better reason that some uncalled for snarkiness.

Google will tell you anything you want to hear.

Do you want to talk or not?