Evidence for God from Science

Hey there new to God and science, but I'm going to get to the point quick. I want to know where I could go to learn more about science in general, what books, what things I need to learn. I can't go around trying to preach the word, saying there is a scientific fact behind God, and my only knowledge being quotes from the main site. So yeah where's a place, website book or forum I can learn all about science in general. Reason being is I want to bring this news to the world, but for sure atheists are going to come out with counter evidence(excuses) against an argument for God. I already have introduced an atheists to this site, and he immediately called this site retarded. My second question is how do I respond to this .

"that site is honestly retarded. anti matter and matter only annihalate when they come into contact, and the rest of them are all based on the fact that everything is just right for life, and everything happens to be present in order for life to continue when people cant just accept that it was billions of years of coincidences that brang life. not some fairy tale about a man in the clouds."

I then asked him why he thought this site was retarded and kindly asked him to stop bashing religion as he was talking to a christian he then responded with this.

"i think its retarded because it takes very generalized scientific facts, repeats them and then takes whatever is unknown about them and says god did it. i bash religion as its retarded.;"


I sent him another question:
"Ok now answer my other question, are you the type of atheists that believes in the possibility in a God and/or Gods, or do you absolutely believe there is no God and/or Gods. Another question is excactly how much did you read ?" He hasn't answered yet but I would want to know what you all think of this little conversation so far. I know there isn't a one way ticket to learning about science, physics, math and things like that., And that they take years upon years to master. But I would like to see some resources like websites,books, forums, anything like that. Thanks people.







Edit:I'm 17, in highschool and failing miserably so I won't be able to make it to a university anytime soon.

Hi Silverfang.

Silverfang wrote:I want to know where I could go to learn more about science in general

Well probably the best place is a university. I don't know what kind or level of education you have but a number of us on this site including myself, have degrees from educational institutions.

There actually is quite a bit of information compiled here on this website. As for books, some of the better books I have read are:

The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief by Francis Collins. He is head of the Human Genome Project and leader of the Pontifical Acadamey of Sciences appointed by Pope Benedict XVI.

The Devil's Delusion: Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions by David Berlinski. He is a member of the Discovery Institute and has written books on Isaac Newton and mathematics. He is a major critic of the theory of evolution.

God's Undertaker: Has Science Buried God? by John Lennox. He is a mathematics professor and humanist from Oxford. He has new books coming out this fall; one on Genesis called Seven Days and another refuting Stephen Hawking's claim that gravity created the universe, caled Stephen Hawking and God.

Can You Be Good Without God? by Ravi Zacharias. Ravi is a Christian apologist on lines with William Lane Craig. He is an eloquent speaker, with a sharp wit and brilliant intellect. He has written numerous books and tours the world speaking about science and moral issues at universities.

Silverfang wrote:"that site is honestly retarded. anti matter and matter only annihalate when they come into contact, and the rest of them are all based on the fact that everything is just right for life, and everything happens to be present in order for life to continue when people cant just accept that it was billions of years of coincidences that brang life. not some fairy tale about a man in the clouds."

Sounds like he already has a presupposed prejudice. I find this site, very intellectually stimulating myself. Not all creationist are young earth creationists (YEC). Some are theistic evolutionists, some are old earth creationists (OEC). I am an OEC. Gap creationist specifically. Coincedences are exactly that; coincedences. The chances of life occuring randomly from mindless unguided processes is astonishingly immense. Christianity is not some fairy tale about a man in the clouds. Maybe try to get him to explain why Christianity exploded from Judaism in the first century under intense persecution. Christianity should have been a movement that died out shortly after it was founded if it were not true. And if he believes in mindless unguided processes, (which seems to be from the quote you gave), ask him why he he would believe that anything is right or wrong? The atheist biologis and philosopher Richard Dawkins has said that the universe we see is exactly the type of universe to expect if there is no God. There is no good or evil, love or hate. Or justice. DNA neither knows no cares. DNA just is and we dance to it's music. He also said that's it's impossible to defend moral values whatsoever, except on religious grounds. If the person you talk to has moral values, ask him how can he defend morals at all based on utter randomness? Moral values can only originate from a moral law giver, which it seems is what he is trying to disprove.

Silverfang wrote: think its retarded because it takes very generalized scientific facts, repeats them and then takes whatever is unknown about them and says god did it. i bash religion as its retarded.;"

Again, he is making assumptions. If he has any guts at all, he would make up an account and rationally discuss with intelligent people. Some of our members here who have posted thousands of times, would either make him think we weren't mad or make him run for the hills in ignorance. Most people I speak with that don't believe simply don't want to believe that there is a God because they know they would have to change their lives and they are comfortable in their sin. It says it very well in the book of Zephaniah:

Zeph 3:5

Otherwise, I would suggest to you in Jesus' words: Don't cast pearls at swine. Christianity is a reality. Not a religion.

Haha, I know somebody exactly like the OP has described.

Heres a site for origine of life and it's problems http://www.theory-of-evolution.net/
Note that with these problems, it does not prove that evolution did not happen, only that it could not happen by random chance. It could happen if there is a god. However, then you need it to be physically possible,
http://www.youtube.com/user/IDquest#g/a
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aTS5ZVuK6Jw
Another idea, look at the parent site, then see something you don't know about, then look it up. Wikipedia is ok as a general knowledge site, as long as you realise that at times it will be biased toward one side or another (such as theological matters or the whole "global warming" thing, the latter they are actually supporting one side and so are suspect).
You might also check this out http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skep ... ments.html . This is what basic illogic looks like, it is usefull for BS detection, when you see something like that being said, be suspicious.
And of course, to see what logic looks like, my personal favorite http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=teMlv3ripSM Ok, thats not really logic, but it is great to see what illogic looks like.

Silverfang wrote: "i think its retarded because it takes very generalized scientific facts, repeats them and then takes whatever is unknown about them and says god did it. i bash religion as its retarded.;"

I'd like to say couple of things.

1. I wonder which part of this forum he saw.
2. Certainly, not everybody on this forum is retarded. And there are also people who are engineers, scientists, ... .
3. His position is similar to Feynman's: "God was invented to explain mystery. God is always invented to explain those things that you do not understand. Now, when you finally discover how something works, you get some laws which you're taking away from God; you don't need him anymore. But you need him for the other mysteries. So therefore you leave him to create the universe because we haven't figured that out yet; you need him for understanding those things which you don't believe the laws will explain, such as consiousness, or why you only live to a certain length of time -- life and death -- stuff like that. God is always associated with those things that you do not understand"

Well, people believe because there are good reasons to believe. And well, maybe it would be more honest to say that we do not understand something than to say that God did it.
(Does not want that guy write us couple of more lines in the thread "What makes a person atheist" in Questions for Christians?)

Anyone who would classify those who believe in God as being retarded is either lacking in critical examination or irrationally bigoted to an extraordinary degree.

The sponsor of this board is a scientist working in the field. The head of the NIH and primary sponsor of the Human Genome Project is a Christian. There's no shortage of intellegent and accomplished scientists who are experts and proficient in their fields who have reconciled their knowledge and maintain a vibrant faith in God.

Sadly, just as there are Religious people and some Christians who are irrational and militant in their beliefs, there is a faction of atheism that hold the same militant attitude. They have more in common with each other, than they have in common with the majority of people who are in the center and willing to examine things calmly and to see how they can reconcile.

Hey Silverfang, I just want to say I understand where you are at. However, there are a lot of good sites that can help you understand science a lot better without having to be really good at science. I just found a site called "Science Against Evolution." This site tries to stay away from any religious discussion, so an atheist might be more willing to read it. It does a really good job of refuting evolution

Cat93 wrote:Hey Silverfang, I just want to say I understand where you are at. However, there are a lot of good sites that can help you understand science a lot better without having to be really good at science. I just found a site called "Science Against Evolution." This site tries to stay away from any religious discussion, so an atheist might be more willing to read it. It does a really good job of refuting evolution

You don't need to "refute evolution", it is a false idea that it is either evolutution or God. Simply put, evolution, by RANDOM CHANCE, is impossible, evolution by PLANNED chance, however, is very possible (nothing is impossible with God). Thus, we have two choices, evolution did not happen, this shows that there is a God, or evolution did happen, this shows, now by evidence we can see and measure, that there is a God, saince it cannot happen if it was not planned. Either way, we end up at God. Your beleif in or disbeleif in evolution is not at issue to your faith in God.

The site above may indeed show how evolution is impossible, however, it is only impossible if there is no God, and it happened by random chance alone.

Many anti evolution sites are under the delusion that if evolution is true, than God is false, and thus are willing to accept any idea that will show evolution as false, even if it is on shakey scientific grounds, or has even been shown false. Thus, simply going to anti evolution sites may not get you much real science. Those that DO have real science, however, show the real science behind evolution, come to the conclusion that it cannot happen by random chance (true), and that therefore it did not happen, (quite possibly false, since anything is possible with God). It is simply accepting that evolution must have happened by purely random chance, which aint so in a universe with a God around it. That cosmic ray which made that desired and usefull mutation could have been planned from the beginning of the universe by God. If it had not, well then, chances are it would not produce the desired mutation (most mutations are undesired, harmfull ones).

BTW, the above science against evolution page seems to be young earth. Thus, it is not science, and should be ignored. It is based on the idea that it is either God or evolution, and that therefore we NEED to make evolution impossible, by making the earth young, and thus giving evolution no time to work. But we do not NEED evolution to be impossible for God to be true, since evolution really is impossible unless God IS true, at which time it is indeed very possible. Thus, no evolution equels God, and evolution equels God, either way we alwasy end up at God. So there is no reason to "defend God" by attacking any idea, no matter how well scientifically grounded it may be, that "proves" evolution.

I mean, look at this quote from that website:
62. There is no evidence to suggest that offspring of animals that eat cooked food are smarter than offspring of the same species that eat raw food.
Uh huh, riiiiight, a completly false attack. Eating cooked food will not indeed make you smarter, but being the offspring of parents who KNOW how to make fire (not easy!), know enough to gather firewood ahead of time (or make the kid do it), know how to make something to cook the food in, and know how to cook it, and also know how to teach all this (language) to their offspring, DOES make you smarter. How many animals do you know that cook their food? So what does that tell you?

They are probably saying this due to the evidence of cooked vegatable matter found in Neanderthal teath. However, Neanderthals had brains on average slightly bigger than we do today. They had evidence of hundreds of years of bone growth, which the scientists change into very fast bone growth that doesnt stop when they reached adulthood (see Andre the Giant, he had this problem and ended up looking a bit like a Neanderthal http://www.andrethegiant.com/about/photos.html), because those scientists were afraid that otherwise we would notice the parralels to the very long ages of pre flood man seen in the bible (this bone growth will turn up the same if it happens over hundreds of years or over a shorter time much faster). These same Neanderthals made skin tents, jewelry, cosmetics, tools, and had buriel customs (the graves have been found) complete with ritual objects in the grave (usually found associeted with belief in an afterlife). Check it out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthals Look about halfway down the page, compare it with Andre the Giant, see the similarity? Also check this out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal_behavior language, culture (complex social groups, jewelry, body paint), they sometimes attacked each other (sin!), made complex tools like bone awls to stitch skins together (takes brains to invent one and use it and teach others later to make one and use one), possibly some medicine (although being able to live to be 900 years old they were probably pretty healthy, right?), and ate plants such as grains and legumes (some agriculture of a sort?).

The idea that they were genetically different than us today and that therefore we cannot be decended from them is false, of course they are gentically different from us, we cannot live to be 900, after the flood reduced them to 8 total, there must have been genetic drift http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_drift and they lost that trait and ended up like we are today (" Genetic drift may cause gene variants to disappear completely, and thereby reduce genetic variation"). The shorter lived new people (post flood Africans) could outbreed them and did so, since they could have a generation along in 20 years and the earliest anyone is said to have had a child in the bible is 70, and it goes way up from that, so in the same time frame, 5 generations or more on average for the new men compared to one for the neanderthal/pre flood man.

Frankly, thesis 62 here http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v12i6f.htm is flat out dishonest, a lie, a bald faced lie. Does that qualify it as being from God, or God inspired? Who is the father of lies, is it God, then who is it?

I must therefore reject the science against evolution website.

Silverfang wrote:Hey there new to God and science, but I'm going to get to the point quick. I want to know where I could go to learn more about science in general, what books, what things I need to learn. I can't go around trying to preach the word, saying there is a scientific fact behind God, and my only knowledge being quotes from the main site. So yeah where's a place, website book or forum I can learn all about science in general. Reason being is I want to bring this news to the world, but for sure atheists are going to come out with counter evidence(excuses) against an argument for God. I already have introduced an atheists to this site, and he immediately called this site retarded. My second question is how do I respond to this .

A Brief History of Time and The Selfish Gene are fairly easy to read and are great pop science by people who went on to become embarrassingly poor theologians.

I'd be wary of going around saying there is scientific fact behind God, there isn't.

Proinsias wrote:

Silverfang wrote:Hey there new to God and science, but I'm going to get to the point quick. I want to know where I could go to learn more about science in general, what books, what things I need to learn. I can't go around trying to preach the word, saying there is a scientific fact behind God, and my only knowledge being quotes from the main site. So yeah where's a place, website book or forum I can learn all about science in general. Reason being is I want to bring this news to the world, but for sure atheists are going to come out with counter evidence(excuses) against an argument for God. I already have introduced an atheists to this site, and he immediately called this site retarded. My second question is how do I respond to this .

A Brief History of Time and The Selfish Gene are fairly easy to read and are great pop science by people who went on to become embarrassingly poor theologians.

I'd be wary of going around saying there is scientific fact behind God, there isn't.

And your evidence for this is...?
Other people hav indeed found scientific facts that shows God, maybe you should check it out. Hint, try the site "Evidence for God from Science", look up .

Or are you here simply to deny the very reason this site, and these forums, exists, without even providing any reason to do so? Are you aware that simple denial of everything this site is about is grounds for dissmissal from this site? Discussion, disagreement backed by reasons, fine (even welcome), simple saying that God and science don't mix as a simple unsupported statement, grounds for dissmisal and loss of posting privilages.

No reasons, no discussion, no privilages.
No shoes, no shirt, no service.

From what I gather this site is based around evidence for God from Science, I respect that. If it was called "God is a Scientific Fact", I wouldn't be here. God is not a repeatable experiment and the notion that there is only one renders it statistically pointless.

I'm pretty sure I didn't claim science and God don't mix.

I've read a fair bit of the main site over the few years I've been here.

Apologies

It would of course be ridiculous to say that any theory is 100% certain. That said, I don't think atheistic evolution is any more (or less) falsifiable or repeatable ( ) than ID. Legatus is a bit aggressive, but he has a point - the biggest argument against evolution (or the most obvious) is that it's unlikely. Theistic evolution would eliminate that and also theological arguments against evolution. I still think though that many people are pressured into accepting it because they don't want to argue that their views are scientifically right or wrong.

To me, it is impossible to prove God through secular scientific tools. I believe in him nonetheless. There are a lot of things science may never be able to answer, so I don't find that hard when it comes to God. Science deals with materialistic things, that all. It doesn't deal with abstraction nor philosophy neither morality. To stick to science to prove any of it is far fetched. But people try it nonetheless and some have very good cases as well. And I do agree with most of it because it is logical and probably true as well but that is not the right approach to render the scriptures.

I hear a lot of arguments that are not even relevant to science still they are approached from that venue, for example,

Stephen hawking in his book "The grand design" writes there is no free will. WTH, if there ain't, the why the hell can we even question free will. you are free to contradict the concept of free will and therefore you have. That is as free as it gets.

Some argue, Objective reality doesn't exist. And who decided objectively that objective reality does not exist?

While one can endlessly debate of either statements, the idea is clear. Sometime, brilliant scientists make poor philosopher and therefore we get statements like above.

neo-x wrote:Stephen hawking in his book "The grand design" writes there is no free will. WTH, if there ain't, the why the hell can we even question free will. you are free to contradict the concept of free will and therefore you have. That is as free as it gets.

Some argue, Objective reality doesn't exist. And who decided objectively that objective reality does not exist?

While one can endlessly debate of either statements, the idea is clear. Sometime, brilliant scientists make poor philosopher and therefore we get statements like above.

Exactly what I've been asking myself lately! How can they call themselves "free-thinkers" if they don't believe in free will? And this question stretches to reason as well - how can a series of chemical reactions in the brain lead to rational thinking, or objective knowledge? Materialism seems self-refuting to me, but I wonder how they respond to these objections.

And how is it with animals? Do they have free will?