There is more then enough evidence to prove God exists.

[Shuttlecraft]

It's simple, God wrote the Evolution/Creation program, then hit 'Go' to start it, THAT was the Big Bang..

 

[SkepticThinker]

It's simple, God wrote the Evolution/Creation program, then hit 'Go' to start it, THAT was the Big Bang..

Okay, so go hit Go, the big bang happened, and everything evolved over billions of years. So the eye did evolve.

So then what's the deal with all the quote mining?

 

[Shuttlecraft]

Like I said, evolution needed a guiding hand to keep tweaking it to keep it on track or it'd have gone dead in the water ages ago..

“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you.." (Jeremiah 1:5)

 

[outhouse]

It is the spirit of God that testifies of its authenticity. .

So spirits are stupid and write pseudo history that never took place we know as mythology and has no real authenticity?

 

[Sonofason]

Actually I am right as you are taking similarity of vague verses and retrofitting those into science. You are taking terminology such as DNA and concluding that it is in "dust" while ignoring the toxic elements in "dust" and that "dust" in not uniformed enough within other "dust". This is a fallacy as I said and a fallacy of weak induction. Just change the word dust for stuff same generalized term used as a specific and a answer for a specific question

All organic molecules that presently exist contain elements that were previously particles of dust.

 

[Shad]

Nope everything breaks down to specific atoms and energy. Combinations of which can be deadly to humans. Since dust is an unspecified it term can be dismissed as such since the term is ambigious.

 

[Ouroboros]

Yep me too.

I also admire someone who can at least attempt to understand an argument, though they may not agree with it.

Exactly.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Like I said, evolution needed a guiding hand to keep tweaking it to keep it on track or it'd have gone dead in the water ages ago..

“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you.." (Jeremiah 1:5)

So god let evolution unfold by itself, except when he didn't??

So what then, he intervened at some point to make eyeballs and wings? What else, and how do you know which things he "tweaked" and which he didn't?

And furthermore, how do you know that evolution needed tweaking to "keep it on track or it'd have gone dead in the water ages ago?"

 

[metis]

Atheists say the bible is full of contradictions, then in their next breath they say it's been edited over the centuries to tidy it up!
Make up your minds guys. huh?..

Theologians generally use the word "variations" to cite verses that may or may not contradict each other. Any serious biblical scholar well knows that one shouldn't be making assumptions one way or another. Also, another inconsistency may be with historical records not conforming to scriptural narratives, but there's often no way of telling if these accounts are accurate.

 

[metis]

But why should anybody want to edit the bible anyway?

Usually these are additions that are not found in the oldest texts, such as with the ending of Mark and the ending of the "Lord's Prayer" ("... for Thine is the kingdom..."). These probably were "commentaries", which were and are heavily used in Judaism, that may have been included at some point in time.

 

[Shuttlecraft]

how do you know that evolution needed tweaking to "keep it on track or it'd have gone dead in the water ages ago?"

When I sat down to read Dawkin's 'Climbing Mt Improbable', I was hoping for a wonderfully-detailed explanation of evolution, but sadly his book was full of inexplicable gaps, holes and missing links that he skipped over.
That's when I knew the Theory of Evolution was by no means as cut and dried as he and his chums like to make out.
So until he can fill in the gaps and CONCLUSIVELY PROVE a God wasn't needed, he's just making guesses and hunches..

 

[metis]

As much as I would love it if there was enough evidence to conclude that God exists, the reality is that there simply is no way of knowing using the scientific method. Even if God does exist, it doesn't seem possible to conclude there's only one God, nor does it seem possible to conclude that God or Gods created our universe.

Generally speaking, if one believes in God (or Gods), they do so on the basis of faith and not empirical evidence, so theists arguing within a scientific paradigm is really quite fruitless.

 

[Serenity7855]

As much as I would love it if there was enough evidence to conclude that God exists, the reality is that there simply is no way of knowing using the scientific method. Even if God does exist, it doesn't seem possible to conclude there's only one God, nor does it seem possible to conclude that God or Gods created our universe.

Generally speaking, if one believes in God (or Gods), they do so on the basis of faith and not empirical evidence, so theists arguing within a scientific paradigm is really quite fruitless.

What you say here is positively true, however, you mistake the paradigm. It is not theism that is challenging science, it is theism responding to having their noses ground into scientific advancements and the usual announcement that science proves theism wrong, which it never has. Evolution was once their pearl. See, God must be a fallacy as a result of our discovery in evolution, only it backfired on them with many theist accepting evolution as Gods method for creation. Everything that science discovers has that edge of it disproving God in it. Watson and Crick ran into the pub, near their laboratory, shouting that they had found the meaning of life, which was immediately taken as proof that God is a fallacy, instead of realising that DNA was written by God. Science is at odds with theism, not the other way around. We want science to discover knew things that will benefit our society in anyway possible. We are Christians, so, we love everyone and want them to be happy. Science is a two edged sword. The acquisition of knew knowledge with the express hope that it will disprove the idea of God at the same time. It never has, and it never will. You cannot disprove the truth, though Dawkins tries very hard to. So, although your words are true it is science that initiates the confrontation by attempting to prove God wrong, we know that we cannot prove God to anyone other then ourselves, which is why faith is all about individuals not congregations. Religion is a personal facet of our journey through our own mortality. We are not, nor should not, try and prove that God exists. It would be seeking after a sign. No, we are defending our belief in the face of science desperately trying to prove that God is a fairy tale. The question that should be asked is Why? Why is science determined to disprove God and all the positivism that comes with him. Whose side are they fighting for. If not for God then who?

 

[Shuttlecraft]

..Generally speaking, if one believes in God (or Gods), they do so on the basis of faith and not empirical evidence, so theists arguing within a scientific paradigm is really quite fruitless.

In modern terms, the bible is simply a chronicle of alien interaction with humans over many centuries.
Today's scientists scan the heavens looking for signs of aliens, but what if they've already been and gone?..

Jesus said- "I know where I came from and where I am going, but you have no idea where I come from or where I am going....you are of this world, I am not of this world.." (John 8:14/ 8:23, Matt 13:35)


STARGATE-THE MOVIE
[The probe continues to move up the ramp, then the probe appears to be pulled through the Stargate.]

SHORE -"The thing has locked itself onto a point somewhere in the Kaliam galaxy."

DANIEL- "Where are we on that map?"
[Daniel moves to the far end of the star chart, then follows to where the trajectory guide is now sitting.]

CATHERINE- "That's right, Jackson. It's on the other side of the known universe"

 

[SkepticThinker]

When I sat down to read Dawkin's 'Climbing Mt Improbable', I was hoping for a wonderfully-detailed explanation of evolution, but sadly his book was full of inexplicable gaps, holes and missing links that he skipped over.
That's when I knew the Theory of Evolution was by no means as cut and dried as he and his chums like to make out.
So until he can fill in the gaps and CONCLUSIVELY PROVE a God wasn't needed, he's just making guesses and hunches..

You should have read The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution.

He's far from the only authority on evolutionary theory. It's been studied extensively for well over 150 years now, and all evidence from every field of relevant science converges on the same conclusion: that evolution is a fact of life. In all that time, no evidence has been presented that has falsified the theory.

I would say that if you want to assert that god IS needed, then the onus is on you to demonstrate that. Though again, I don't think religion and evolution are necessarily incompatible BUT if you want to say that god stepped in and tweaked this or that, and if you want to convince others of that, then you need to be able to demonstrate when, where and why that happened. Otherwise, you are just making guesses and hunches.

 

[SkepticThinker]

What you say here is positively true, however, you mistake the paradigm. It is not theism that is challenging science, it is theism responding to having their noses ground into scientific advancements and the usual announcement that science proves theism wrong, which it never has. Evolution was once their pearl. See, God must be a fallacy as a result of our discovery in evolution, only it backfired on them with many theist accepting evolution as Gods method for creation. Everything that science discovers has that edge of it disproving God in it. Watson and Crick ran into the pub, near their laboratory, shouting that they had found the meaning of life, which was immediately taken as proof that God is a fallacy, instead of realising that DNA was written by God. Science is at odds with theism, not the other way around. We want science to discover knew things that will benefit our society in anyway possible. We are Christians, so, we love everyone and want them to be happy. Science is a two edged sword. The acquisition of knew knowledge with the express hope that it will disprove the idea of God at the same time. It never has, and it never will. You cannot disprove the truth, though Dawkins tries very hard to. So, although your words are true it is science that initiates the confrontation by attempting to prove God wrong, we know that we cannot prove God to anyone other then ourselves, which is why faith is all about individuals not congregations. Religion is a personal facet of our journey through our own mortality. We are not, nor should not, try and prove that God exists. It would be seeking after a sign. No, we are defending our belief in the face of science desperately trying to prove that God is a fairy tale. The question that should be asked is Why? Why is science determined to disprove God and all the positivism that comes with him. Whose side are they fighting for. If not for God then who?

Science is not a person. It has no desires. Science is a methodology.

 

[Serenity7855]

Science is not a person. It has no desires. Science is a methodology.

Science is a religion like no other with a congregation that is unique. They, you, worship their own God with greater zeal and fevor then any theistic God that I know, and they keep their Commandments with greater adherence then mine. Science is a living organism with its own needs and desires. It needs to be worshipped, like the only true God, by a congregation that glorifies it's name and defends it's honour. Your God is, out of necessity, the polar opposite in character to that of the Christian God, however, a God it is and it's congregationalists are folk just like you.

 

[Shad]

What you say here is positively true, however, you mistake the paradigm. It is not theism that is challenging science, it is theism responding to having their noses ground into scientific advancements and the usual announcement that science proves theism wrong, which it never has. Evolution was once their pearl. See, God must be a fallacy as a result of our discovery in evolution, only it backfired on them with many theist accepting evolution as Gods method for creation. Everything that science discovers has that edge of it disproving God in it. Watson and Crick ran into the pub, near their laboratory, shouting that they had found the meaning of life, which was immediately taken as proof that God is a fallacy, instead of realising that DNA was written by God. Science is at odds with theism, not the other way around. We want science to discover knew things that will benefit our society in anyway possible. We are Christians, so, we love everyone and want them to be happy. Science is a two edged sword. The acquisition of knew knowledge with the express hope that it will disprove the idea of God at the same time. It never has, and it never will. You cannot disprove the truth, though Dawkins tries very hard to. So, although your words are true it is science that initiates the confrontation by attempting to prove God wrong, we know that we cannot prove God to anyone other then ourselves, which is why faith is all about individuals not congregations. Religion is a personal facet of our journey through our own mortality. We are not, nor should not, try and prove that God exists. It would be seeking after a sign. No, we are defending our belief in the face of science desperately trying to prove that God is a fairy tale. The question that should be asked is Why? Why is science determined to disprove God and all the positivism that comes with him. Whose side are they fighting for. If not for God then who?

Science is not a person, not an agenda, it has no will or mind. It is how people view it which causes confrontation. Religion adapts, assimlates and changes or it dies. Relgion plays catchup with scientific discoveries and has for centuries. It is those on the fringe like YEC or anti-evolutionist who feel as if they are being attacked instead of outdated ideas they may hold. You are playing a victim of your own beliefs and ideas rather than a legatimite victim.

 

[Shuttlecraft]

..I would say that if you want to assert that god IS needed, then the onus is on you to demonstrate that..

As I mentioned earlier, Dawkins scientifically "explains" the evolution of the lens thus-
"It is not difficult then for rudimentary lens-like objects to come into existence spontaneously.
Any old lump of halfway transparent jelly need only assume a curved shape" ('Climbing Mount Improbable', page146)

Haha he'll have to do better than that!
To say it "spontaneously" appeared out of nowhere and then decided to form itself into a curved shape all on its own is pure wonderland stuff!..
Waddya say Alice?

"I do soooo wish something would make sense for a change!"

 

[Serenity7855]

Science is not a person, not an agenda, it has no will or mind. It is how people view it which causes confrontation. Religion adapts, assimlates and changes or it dies. Relgion plays catchup with scientific discoveries and has for centuries. It is those on the fringe like YEC or anti-evolutionist who feel as if they are being attacked instead of outdated ideas they may hold. You are playing a victim of your own beliefs and ideas rather than a legatimite victim.

Religion is not a person either. I never said that either of them were. You did. Science is a living organism with all that it requires. An organism that you worship and idolise. To say that God changes and adapts is an insult to Christians throughout the world. It is tantamount to blasphemous. God is the same today, as yesterday and as will be in time to come. Nothing about God and His Plan of redemption has ever changed or will, ever change. It's Commandments, principles and precepts are constant and are not effected by time. It is because it does not adapts, assimlates or change that it is alive and vibrant. Most non-believers accept that and use it to ridicule Christians, but you seem to be changing it in order to be at the best vantage point. Behold I say unto you, he that denieth these things knoweth not the gospel of Christ; yea, he has not read the scriptures; if so, he does not understand them. For do we not read that God is the same yesterday, today, and forever, and in him there is no variableness neither shadow of changing? And now, if ye have imagined up unto yourselves a god who doth vary, and in whom there is shadow of changing, then have ye imagined up unto yourselves a god who is not a God of miracles. Many scientific breakthroughs were spoken of in scripture long before science discovered was. The Lord showed Abraham the intelligences that were organized before the world was.