Evidence for God from Science

Posted: **Sat Sep 24, 2005 12:35 pm**

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:You may not be able to see it, but you can detect its gravitational pull.

Yes, so in responce to you PHIL121 there is a measurement of Dark Matter. And at this point the measurements don't show enough mass to create a big crunch.

Posted: **Sat Sep 24, 2005 3:58 pm**

Are you trying to imply that ALL the dark matter in the universe has been found so far?

Posted: **Sat Sep 24, 2005 5:34 pm**

Blob wrote:. Yet the answer itself is, in fact, conjured out of thin air and utterly underivable from the gap in knowledge it aims to plug.

I agree to a huge extent. Lol. A theory derived through the scientific method, which is largely ignored considering many of the "theories" we discuss did not follow that age old cannon of science, does not by default become science. Spontaneus generation ond other scientific theories if their day were not part of scientific knowledge. They were wrong as are many today in spite of the fact the explain things. I think that this is "science falsely so called"

Posted: **Sat Sep 24, 2005 8:38 pm**

Jbuza wrote:
A theory derived through the scientific method, which is largely ignored considering many of the "theories" we discuss did not follow that age old cannon of science, does not by default become science.

If a theory is arrived at through the scientific method, one must use the scientific method to discredit it.

Aliens seeding the Earth doesn't qualify, because there is no evidence to support it in the firs place.

Posted: **Sun Sep 25, 2005 11:57 am**

PHIL121 wrote:
Jbuza wrote:
A theory derived through the scientific method, which is largely ignored considering many of the "theories" we discuss did not follow that age old cannon of science, does not by default become science.
If a theory is arrived at through the scientific method, one must use the scientific method to discredit it.

Aliens seeding the Earth doesn't qualify, because there is no evidence to support it in the firs place.

Depends on what you count as evidence. There is no evidence for creationism, yet many believe in that.

Posted: **Sun Sep 25, 2005 12:03 pm**

SoccerfreakAB2 wrote:
PHIL121 wrote:
Jbuza wrote:
A theory derived through the scientific method, which is largely ignored considering many of the "theories" we discuss did not follow that age old cannon of science, does not by default become science.
If a theory is arrived at through the scientific method, one must use the scientific method to discredit it.

Aliens seeding the Earth doesn't qualify, because there is no evidence to support it in the firs place.
Depends on what you count as evidence. There is no evidence for creationism, yet many believe in that.

Really? Have you heard of the Big Bang Theory by any chance?

Also, you must define what you mean by creationism-there are the Biblically consistent versions, and then the Biblically inconsistent and gnostic versions...

Posted: **Sun Sep 25, 2005 12:14 pm**

Actually, The Big Bang theory argues FOR Creationism.

SOMETHING had to start it

Posted: **Sun Sep 25, 2005 12:39 pm**

It's so funny how many people believe in the Big Bang...but not understand its implications...all you have to do is look at some scientists who have made up some stupid theories: scientists like Hoyle who made up a theory that breaks laws-such as the one that matter cannot be created-his theory says that matter is created at the rate of one hydrogen atom per 1000 square miles in space per year...:-p Then you have the unscientific multiverse theory proposed by at least Stephen Gould, and then you have Stephen Hawkins who uses imaginary numbers (multiples of the square root of negative one....) to get around the beginning-his theory involves imaginary time :-p

Posted: **Sun Sep 25, 2005 3:15 pm**

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:It's so funny how many people believe in the Big Bang...

Almost as amazing as advertisers thinking people "can find love...in a Kmart store"

Posted: **Sun Sep 25, 2005 5:38 pm**

PHIL121 wrote:Actually, The Big Bang theory argues FOR Creationism.

SOMETHING had to start it

Wow! Wow! I have never thought of this before. The big bang theory is not at all the same thing when you approach it from a different philosophical position. IT is much easier to explain, is more simple, and therefor more scientific when one doesn't arbitrarily reject God. Interesting. I guess from a strict materialistic philosophy one would have to speculate about Dark matter. I really like this thought Phil121.

Posted: **Sun Sep 25, 2005 7:52 pm**

What's more, I've heard one theory (it WAS by a Christian relating it) that the Big Bang was caused by an "information wave".

"In the begining was the Word..."....John 1:1

Posted: **Sun Sep 25, 2005 7:53 pm**

Uh...?

Posted: **Sun Sep 25, 2005 8:01 pm**

You buy batteries for your hearing aid at Kmart?

What's more, I've heard one theory (it WAS by a Christian relating it) that the Big Bang was caused by an "information wave".

"In the begining was the Word..."....John 1:1

Ipisito loquator(sp?)....

Posted: **Sun Sep 25, 2005 8:03 pm**

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:Uh...?

Posted: **Sun Sep 25, 2005 9:25 pm**

:bbzzzttt: Stock boy to aisle three...stock boy to aisle three...Help the shopper with the brain disorder...help the shopper with the brain disorder...:bbbbzzztt:

Evidence for God from Science

How the universe came to be?