Evidence for God from Science

yet you can be the most arrogant, pompous, and dismissive person I've met.

you should know that binary is not the best way to communicate. yet i see noting dismissive about the first statement yu quoted. zoe accused me of enjoying pointing these things out. i don't but it has to be done.

also i would not be saying what i am saying if i weren't directed by God, God uses humans to bring is message, He has one way of doing things His way and when people, who are called by His name, stray then He has to call them back to the fold.

You always assume that what you believe is the truth, regardless of everyone else. Now, it may turn out at the end that you are right, but, then again, it may not.

do you think i just look at a passage and determine what is right or wrong? what is truth or not? i am not God

it has taken years of study, learning, listening and so on to get what God anted me to learn, you are just getting the resultsof that so you do not have to endure what i have had to.

i would not be speaking if He had not done so.

archaeologist wrote: it has taken years of study, learning, listening and so on to get what God anted me to learn, you are just getting the resultsof that so you do not have to endure what i have had to.

I can say the same thing about how God has convicted me of learning about His creation.

I can say the same thing about how God has convicted me of learning about His creation

then why do you hold to a progressive creation then? it is not what God has said and if you believe God why would you hold views different than His?

My point

You are heartily convinced that God has convicted you of His creative process

I am convinced that God has convicted me of His creative process, I am not taking any power, creativity, or will from GOd, I am merely curious to how He did it.

I am convinced that God has convicted me of His creative process, I am not taking any power, creativity, or will from GOd, I am merely curious to how He did it

He already told you in Genesis and other parts of scripture so why do you hold to a belief that is contrary to what scripture says?

and if it is from what God has said in the Bible then i would sugggest you seek the source of that conviction because if anything goes contrary to God's written word, it is not of God.

evolution, theistic evolution, micro-evolution, natural selection,etc. are not of God.

============.
"I want to know how God created this world.
I am not interested in this or that phenomenon,
in the spectrum of this or that element.
I want to know His thoughts; the rest are details."
/Einstein/
======= ========..
Once upon a time, 20 billions of years ago, all matter
(all elementary particles and all quarks and
their girlfriends- antiparticles and antiquarks,
all kinds of waves: electromagnetic, gravitational,
muons… gluons field ….. etc.) — was assembled in a “single point”.
It is interesting to think about what had surrounded the “single point”.
The answer is :
EMPTINESS- NOTHING….!!!
Ok!
But why does everyone speak about EMPTINESS- NOTHING in
common phrases rather than in specific, concrete terms?
I wonder why nobody has written down this EMPTINESS- NOTHING in
the form of a physical formula ? You see, every schoolboy knows that
is possible to express the EMPTINESS- NOTHING condition
by the formula T=0K.
* * *
Once there was a “Big Bang”.
But in what space had the Big Bang taken place
and in what space was the matter of the Big Bang distributed?
Not in T=0K?
It is clear, that there is only EMPTINESS, NOTHING, in T=0K.
Now consider that the Universe, as an absolute frame of reference is
in a condition of T = 2,7K (rests relic radiation of the Big Bang ).
But, the relic radiation is extended and in the future will change
and its temperature will decrease.
What temperature can this radiation reach?
Not T=0K?
Hence, if we go into the past or into the present or into the future,
we can not escape from EMPTINESS- NOTHING T=0K.
Therefore it is necessary to begin to think from T=0K.
===== ========
About the theory of the “Big Bang” is written the thick (very thick) books.
But anywhere do not write about the reason of the “Big Bang”.
Anybody does not know it.
I know.
The action, when the God compresses all Universe
into his palm, we have named " a singular point".
And action, when the God opens his palm,
we have named the "Big Bang".
============ ==============.

...This is my first post on this site.I must say i find it very informative from the very mildest to the widest thoughts of each post i read.I find it very important in my daily learning as i had alot to digest from here i barely have time to make post cos its so interesting and educative reading thru the forums.To make my very little addition to the issues discussed here...

I'ld like to ask the average reader to ponder..What does it mean to us first and to God being a xtian scientist?,I think the Book of Revelation says God detests magic in any form and don't seem to support the view that God would give you a magic cure maybe in a dream or by any form.

Like his word says I think its important to remember that he hides secret from kings...and gives pleasure giving them to kids....Secrets,Discoveries formulae are attributes of the very diligent and deep scientist whom trusting in God as the source and the Holy spirit as the key architect that he works hard and not expect any magic form of any sort...

Another strike out i would like to present is the bleak spectrum painted about science and the inevitable defence between creationism and Biblical standards about the issues of Life.
Lets face it,if we're just a christian designer or perhaps an artist and a person makes a good art work or very good music as a music write.we attribute its intelligence to God.Whats with the fuss about science against God.?I think i need supports about how Science working through God for God in making things just as they are...Not to over lengthen the scope of my post i wish to get more supportive and educative replys on my post.


Enrico..

all omit God or the spiritual and this omission is the problem with science. once a person ignores data, omits it, or whatever, their theory, experiment and subsequently there conclusions have become corrupted.

What data is being omitted? Some sort of data you assume is present?

Explain... as this proposition against science is otherwise unsubstantiated and moot...

The original poster has been banned and as such, would not be available for a reply.

zoegirl wrote:The original poster has been banned and as such, would not be available for a reply.

lol

Bzzt you can trash this if you wish.