Evidence for God from Science

SLP, again, what is your point of "discussing" on this website? To convert Christians to atheists? It isn't going to happen, your claims will just be rebuked, like everyone before you. I'm not the person to rebuke them, but other stronger Christians will. You seem to place your faith soley on science. You can't accept something that isn't visable. Do you accept gravity because it is invisable, yes, but only because science has proved it. So just because we can't prove God through your kind of atheistic and theorized science, we deny him? I do relize atheists can be very intellegent and distort theories into facts, but the reason God hasn't "knocked" on your "door" is because you have firmly said to him - "Hey God, I hate you, I reject you, you're not real, matter came into existence from NOTHING, evolution is fact." He probably already did knock on your door but you just chose to worship yourself. Do you have an explanation for every single miracles that happens to people around the globe? I don't think you do. Because you soley rely on science. I think you are just being stubborn. Is there ANY part of you that believes that a God exists, ANY part, deeeeeeeeep down? You wont even consider it, will you? I do feel sorry for you, but you really need to re-evaluate life and its purpose. Again though, I want you to explain WHY Anthony Flew - http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/flew.html - decided there has to be a God and I want you to explain how each miracle works in people throughout the globe.

Don't twist my words-I said using the sun as an excuse around the 2nd law of thermodynamics is laughable.

I'm merely pointing out that the Sun has many purposes and that when it's energy runs out we are going to be pretty screwed on so many levels. Which furthermore adds to my entropy argument that whilst we are getting more and more complex it will probably eventually stop once the sun (as well as many other resources) dwindle.

getting chemicals together that are found in cells and sending electrical charges or radiation through them won't create order and complex life AND information.

No it creates a single cell, with basic working parts. Evolution does the rest.

That doesn't seem logical, so explain how bacteria has gotten more complex....and how there is greater genetic diversity...sounds odd...but still not evidence for evolution

A case study is Golden Staff, the bacterial infection that occurs commenly in Hospitals, particularly when surgery is conducted. I dont really have the time to go into detail now, but basically it involves bacteria who have a resistance to anti-biotics, they gained this through mutation and are free from competition once anti-biotics are administered which means they can duplicate alot faster resulting in an abundance of this Golden Staff bacterium. The bacteria has gotten more complex, in that it has become more resistance to a thing that would normally kill it.

It is all written so plainly on the pages of the Bible.

'Plainly' is not the right word to use I dont think. Because the Bible isn't plain, it's ambiguous as all hell. It seems to be very convenient to those that follow it as well, in that whenever Science disproves something as stated in the Bible the fanatics can claim 'oh it's metaphorical' or something like that.

I'm all for following the teachings of Jesus, I think we could all learn a lot from him but as for him being the physical offspring of our 'devine creator' it is a little harder to swallow.

And don't even get me started with the Young-Earth Creationist Theory, we have scientific proof (through carbon dating) that the Earth is millions of years old. Alot of you say that there could be problems of dating in that we don't know the environmental conditions in which this carbon was decaying but in this issue I point you towards Occams Razor, that is the simplest explanation, the most logical one, is usually always the right one.

SLP: I am very interested in what academic study you did on this subject, I am currently at University now and am thinking of changing subjects, if you could PM me with any advice it would be greatly appreciated.

getting chemicals together that are found in cells and sending electrical charges or radiation through them won't create order and complex life AND information.


No it creates a single cell, with basic working parts. Evolution does the rest.

A single cell contains order and is complex life and does contain information....200 million processes are going on in a little cell.

A case study is Golden Staff, the bacterial infection that occurs commenly in Hospitals, particularly when surgery is conducted. I dont really have the time to go into detail now, but basically it involves bacteria who have a resistance to anti-biotics, they gained this through mutation and are free from competition once anti-biotics are administered which means they can duplicate alot faster resulting in an abundance of this Golden Staff bacterium. The bacteria has gotten more complex, in that it has become more resistance to a thing that would normally kill it.

It was a mutation that actually hinders the bacteria-the structure the drug attached to has a different shape now-so that's not more complex, and it's beneficial, in the sense of a soldier loosing his legs a few days before the battle that finishes off his company...

I'm all for following the teachings of Jesus, I think we could all learn a lot from him but as for him being the physical offspring of our 'devine creator' it is a little harder to swallow.

Everlasting Man should have some good stuff on it....and the Bible does too...

And don't even get me started with the Young-Earth Creationist Theory, we have scientific proof (through carbon dating) that the Earth is millions of years old. Alot of you say that there could be problems of dating in that we don't know the environmental conditions in which this carbon was decaying but in this issue I point you towards Occams Razor, that is the simplest explanation, the most logical one, is usually always the right one.

Occam was lazy and even if you are given trillions of years, you won't get life.

HelpMeGod wrote:SLP, again, what is your point of "discussing" on this website?

Just what I have already written twice. That I found the amount of distortion and disinformation incredible.

To convert Christians to atheists?

Not at all, as I have already written. Why do you keep asking the same questions over and over?

It isn't going to happen, your claims will just be rebuked, like everyone before you.

Rebuked? Ignoired more likely. But no matter, as I said, I am not here to do what you seem so afraid of.

I'm not the person to rebuke them, but other stronger Christians will.

You mean like 'Mastermind'?? LOL!

You seem to place your faith soley on science.

How in the world did you glean that?

You can't accept something that isn't visable. Do you accept gravity because it is invisable, yes, but only because science has proved it.

Science has not proven gravity.

So just because we can't prove God through your kind of atheistic and theorized science, we deny him?

Did you not even try to read what I wrote? I specifically answered your questions already, and here you are rephrasing them as though you had never asked them before. Are you trying to edify your preconceived notions?

I do relize atheists can be very intellegent and distort theories into facts, but the reason God hasn't "knocked" on your "door" is because you have firmly said to him - "Hey God, I hate you, I reject you, you're not real, matter came into existence from NOTHING, evolution is fact."

I have said nothing of the sort. I find your characterization ignornat and offensive.

He probably already did knock on your door but you just chose to worship yourself.

Your repertoire of preconceived notions is so hackneyed and shopworn that I can only laugh.

Do you have an explanation for every single miracles that happens to people around the globe? I don't think you do.

No, because I do not believe that miracles occur.

Because you soley rely on science. I think you are just being stubborn. Is there ANY part of you that believes that a God exists, ANY part, deeeeeeeeep down? You wont even consider it, will you? I do feel sorry for you, but you really need to re-evaluate life and its purpose.

I believed, as I have already written to you, for 20 years. It was after DEEEEEEEP down thought that I decided it was illogical.

Again though, I want you to explain WHY Anthony Flew - http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/flew.html - decided there has to be a God and I want you to explain how each miracle works in people throughout the globe.

Why would I need ot explain the thought processes that occurred in an aging philosopher?

I am not going to debate Christianity with you - that will only give you and your ilk fodder for piling on me and urging the admin to 'ban' me.

This board is titled 'theology and science'. I wanted to discuss science. I came and saw the amount of disinformation being peddled here and thought I would briefly try to deal with it. I see that that was interpreted as attacks against Christianity and such. If simple corrections to falsehoods is an 'attack' on your beliefs, then your beliefs are weak indeed.

SLP wrote:

HelpMeGod wrote:SLP, again, what is your point of "discussing" on this website?

Just what I have already written twice. That I found the amount of distortion and disinformation incredible.

To convert Christians to atheists?

Not at all, as I have already written. Why do you keep asking the same questions over and over?

It isn't going to happen, your claims will just be rebuked, like everyone before you.

Rebuked? Ignoired more likely. But no matter, as I said, I am not here to do what you seem so afraid of.

I'm not the person to rebuke them, but other stronger Christians will.

You mean like 'Mastermind'?? LOL!

You seem to place your faith soley on science.

How in the world did you glean that?

You can't accept something that isn't visable. Do you accept gravity because it is invisable, yes, but only because science has proved it.

Science has not proven gravity.

So just because we can't prove God through your kind of atheistic and theorized science, we deny him?

Did you not even try to read what I wrote? I specifically answered your questions already, and here you are rephrasing them as though you had never asked them before. Are you trying to edify your preconceived notions?

I do relize atheists can be very intellegent and distort theories into facts, but the reason God hasn't "knocked" on your "door" is because you have firmly said to him - "Hey God, I hate you, I reject you, you're not real, matter came into existence from NOTHING, evolution is fact."

I have said nothing of the sort. I find your characterization ignornat and offensive.

He probably already did knock on your door but you just chose to worship yourself.

Your repertoire of preconceived notions is so hackneyed and shopworn that I can only laugh.

Do you have an explanation for every single miracles that happens to people around the globe? I don't think you do.

No, because I do not believe that miracles occur.

Because you soley rely on science. I think you are just being stubborn. Is there ANY part of you that believes that a God exists, ANY part, deeeeeeeeep down? You wont even consider it, will you? I do feel sorry for you, but you really need to re-evaluate life and its purpose.

I believed, as I have already written to you, for 20 years. It was after DEEEEEEEP down thought that I decided it was illogical.

Again though, I want you to explain WHY Anthony Flew - http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/flew.html - decided there has to be a God and I want you to explain how each miracle works in people throughout the globe.

Why would I need ot explain the thought processes that occurred in an aging philosopher?

I am not going to debate Christianity with you - that will only give you and your ilk fodder for piling on me and urging the admin to 'ban' me.

This board is titled 'theology and science'. I wanted to discuss science. I came and saw the amount of disinformation being peddled here and thought I would briefly try to deal with it. I see that that was interpreted as attacks against Christianity and such. If simple corrections to falsehoods is an 'attack' on your beliefs, then your beliefs are weak indeed.

DISINFORMATION!? Yup, he's lost his mind . You are the one that is brainwashed, you are just here to argue with other Christians that you think you know everything that you are all knowing, all powerful, you ARE GOD. You have made it clear that you are going to stay an atheist and according to the forum rules, anyone that has already chosen thier religion against ours (i.e. atheism), can't be on the forums. This is because people like you like to attack Christians and other religions with flase information. 10% of the world are pagans/agnostics/atheist/non-believers, that holds 90% religion, do you really expect it to rise as the discovery of creationism increases as Newsweek put it? All of your so called information may contain hints of truth but most of it is false. Look into Christian theolgy, philosophy, apologetics, and all the doctrine it has to offer. You seem to just get your information from the atheist point of view instead of looking at it from the Christian and atheist views.

SLP, I highly respect your position. HelpMeGod, I think you need to calm down and realize SLP does have good points that do deserve to be addressed. I am far, far too ignorant to argue about the details of evolution, but frankly that doesn't matter. As for evidence for Christianity's reality I've read two books: John McDowell's Evidence That Demands a Verdict and Lee Strobel's The Case for a Creator. I find a number of those arguments for Christianity in those to be stupid and illogical grasping out of desperation, however, I did find things that seemed like pretty straight-forward, simple proof that can't be argued, and a lot of other believable points. Jesus and his miracles are historical events. The Bible is a trustworthy historical work, (setting aside controversy over many of the miracles,) and should be given it's due respect for that. The odds for evolution to have "worked" at creating the life forms we see here on earth deems it nearly impossible. And basing your beliefs on a dislike of a righteous Judge as a Creator and on believing in evolution seems pretty loaded. What are your reasons for being an atheist? I'm not trying to challenge or argue here in the mean-spirited way HelpMeGod did, (yes, you did Brian,) but I'd like to know because I'm guessing you're an atheist out of a desire for God to not be real, and that is the most illogical reason anyone could have for not believing in the possibility of a god. If you have other philosophical reasons I'd like to hear them.

Sorry Kateliz, I do respect your opinions, but I hold absolutely no respect for SLP at all, even a little bit. His attacks are so thinly veiled I don't even know what to make of them.

SLP wrote:I wanted to discuss science. I came and saw the amount of disinformation being peddled here and thought I would briefly try to deal with it.

Again, this is a plain and simple lie. See the next 2 sentances:

SLP wrote:I see that that was interpreted as attacks against Christianity and such. If simple corrections to falsehoods is an 'attack' on your beliefs, then your beliefs are weak indeed.

Why did you bring up our beliefs if you are only interested in discussing science?

slp,

it was after deeeeeeep down thought that i decided it was illogical...

must suck to be that shallow!

darwinrocks,

carbon dating is highly flawed.

there is absolutely no proof for macroevolution.

If simple corrections to falsehoods is an 'attack' on your beliefs, then your beliefs are weak indeed.

As far as I've read, these so called falsehoods you wish replaced with falsehoods.

I am not going to debate Christianity with you - that will only give you and your ilk fodder for piling on me and urging the admin to 'ban' me.

If you were in danger of being banned for debating, Darwin_Rocks would have been long gone.

Why would I need ot explain the thought processes that occurred in an aging philosopher?

You find it necessary to call Flew a lunatic or a demented man since he, after many years, has come to the logical conclusion that God has existed, through the four years of being witnessed by a friend?

Your repertoire of preconceived notions is so hackneyed and shopworn that I can only laugh.

Yours too

Science has not proven gravity.

It has not visually detected gravity, but gravity has been measured and the universal constant has been known for over 100 years (though somewhat more precise now)...I don't care to look up the beginning of this odd statement (why you said it) so I'm just leaving it at that.

You mean like 'Mastermind'?? LOL!

Finally, someone that agrees he's a little ...odd

That I found the amount of distortion and disinformation incredible.

If you're referring to the fossils it's *cough* the distortion is on your side of the fence.

HelpMeGod....calm down, you're making up several things....as well as....going on and on....and saying you're right based on majority is bad-you can be right and be the only one who thinks so....or everyone could think they're right while bein wrong..

I find a number of those arguments for Christianity in those to be stupid and illogical grasping out of desperation

As I haven't read them, you could explain some of their bad arguments? It's a lot easier than actually reading the book...

darwinrocks,

carbon dating is highly flawed.

there is absolutely no proof for macroevolution.

And before you complain of that being set up as a straw man...the rest suffer from poor assumptions that just give evolutionists the ages the want....and if the process doesn't, they do it until it does....or just lie, that's always a possibility.[/quote]

colors wrote:darwinrocks,

carbon dating is highly flawed.

there is absolutely no proof for macroevolution.

How so? Carbon Dating helps us date to the near time of Moses, Joseph, Solomon, David etc...

Because to use carbon dating, one must assume that the C12 and C14 have reached equilibrium, which the man behind the process said would be at equilibrium after 30,000 years. The fact, though, is they're not at equilibrium. So....you might, if that is the only assumption, get close...but the farther back in time, the farther and farther off you will get (at what rate I don't know, possibly at an exponential rate). And before an OEC pops up after my throat, the Flood destroyed all plant life, including massive forests where forests no longer exist (Antarctica for example, and around the Arctic), which allowed the equilibrium to be disturbed (treading a thin line between atheists and OEC...).

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:Because to use carbon dating, one must assume that the C12 and C14 have reached equilibrium, which the man behind the process said would be at equilibrium after 30,000 years. The fact, though, is they're not at equilibrium. So....you might, if that is the only assumption, get close...but the farther back in time, the farther and farther off you will get (at what rate I don't know, possibly at an exponential rate). And before an OEC pops up after my throat, the Flood destroyed all plant life, including massive forests where forests no longer exist (Antarctica for example, and around the Arctic), which allowed the equilibrium to be disturbed (treading a thin line between atheists and OEC...).

Like the first part but running on the line again Kmart c12 14 would not be useful even to Christian Historians?

As I don't know the rate that the carbon 12 and 14 are changing in percentages, and how much this would impact dates obtained, I'm going to say, maybe recent dates aren't that far off....but still off.

In other words, carbon dating is only good when it proves your point.