Does science support the existence of God?

Phat Daddy · 06-24-2007, 11:09 PM

Does science support the existence of God?

Some people believe that science and religion are incompatible. That may be so, but religion is not the issue I'm defending. Organized religion is man-made and subject to corruption. I am generally not fond of it. Nevertheless, God is real and Christ is the one and only way to reach Him. I am about to demonstrate this with a brief, scientific explanation for those of you who don't know God. The time is close when you will have to make an eternal choice. I never push my beliefs on anybody, but please consider my logic and really think about it for a minute. I hope it helps you to make a solid choice on this issue. The reconciliation of science and Christianity is fairly simple...

The Second Law: Life violates entropy and supports the idea of providence.

The psalmist says, "Great are the works of the Lord, pondered by all those who delight in them." Basically, every scientist seeks to understand the mind of God. Even the most hard-core agnostic or dietistic scientist (as I use to be) accepts on faith that the universe is ordered. There is a rational basis to existence that is evident in this order. This is shown in the laws of science and math which are very predicable. So I think many scientists will agree that there is a god. How else can you explain order and design? The Second Law of thermodynamics states that entropy (or disorder) always increases with time, so we basically live in a decaying universe. All you have to do is stop making repairs around the house to see that principle at work! Eventually, the entire universe will "burn out" as it continues to expand and be reduced to nothing more that low level, background radiation mostly in the form of microwaves. How then does life develop and thrive when the whole universe is in a state of decay? How is it that there are sophisticated, self-replicating organisms in the universe, known as life, that develop in spite of the Second Law? It is know as the Anthropic Principle and it shows divine providence without a doubt. If there was not a god that favored mankind, it simple could not have developed. Life shows an extremely high level of order and complexity that must have been created because order is not the natural state of the universe, disorder is. In other words, there is design and design requires a designer! Therefore, there must be a god.

Darwinian Evolution VS Divine Evolution...

Atheistic scientists are a different story. They believe that life resulted from random combinations of simple molecules in a spontaneous fashion and that the universe just happened without cause or that it always existed in a static state, but that's not mathematically legitimate and does not agree with common observation. Even Darwin said of the human eye that the odds that it "could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I confess, absurd in the highest possible degree." Darwinian evolution is simply not possible. It requires transitional life forms that do not exist in the fossil record. The "missing links" as they are called. Why are there well defined species in the fossil record with no intermediate forms? There are gigantic gaps in the record that can't be explained! I can sympathize with the rational of an agnostic scientist, but the atheistic scientist is simply a fool that can not be taken seriously. There's just way too much evidence against the spontaneous appearance and progression of life or "naturalism" as some call it. Creation is the best explanation, and that is obviously precluded if there if no creator. Besides, if law and order are really the products of a mindless natural process, the human mind must be viewed as an accident too in a series of many accidents. If that's so, how can we have any confidence that our mind could even recognize the truth anyway?! How could a concept like truth even be possible? It just doesn't make sense without God. There would be no need and no reason for any of this observed order plus the observation itself would necessarily be questionable.

The First Law: Conservation necessitates creation to explain existence.

I talked about the Second Law already but the First Law of thermodynamics is a fundamental, scientific property of the universe that also strongly supports the existence of God. It states that energy can change forms, but can not be created or destroyed. That means that the overall energy of a finite system remains constant. Man can only refashion existing materials, but can't actually create anything new. The First Law shows that the universe must have had a finite beginning and that it could not have just created itself. Just like naturalism can't properly explain life, there is no natural process that could possibly account for it's own origin. This scientific law is directly oppositional to evolution or a godless beginning. The reason energy can not be destroyed is stated in the Bible: God "upholds all things by the word of his power" Heb.1:3 and "preserves and keeps in store his creation." Peter3:7 So basically, the Second Law proves that the universe must have had a beginning and the First Law proves it could not have just begun by itself. The total energy of the universe is constant, but the amount of available (or ordered) energy is steadily decreasing over time into a disordered form. If you could go back in time, this would reverse itself and order would increase. You would reach a point where total energy was equal to available energy. That was the beginning of time and time can't go back any farther than that point. That point is known as a singularity and is part of the mystery of one singular god. Since energy can't just create itself, and there was no other imperative in the first place for it to exist, there is only one logical scientific conclusion: "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth". Really, it seems like a no-brainer and there are no other satisfactory explanations that match the known facts and laws, unless you believe the Norse legend of creation which involves a hungry giant and a big cow and lots of fire and some other weird stuff like that. (lol)

The Cosmological Argument demonstrates there must be some god out there.

There are only 4 possibilities as to the origin of the universe and thus the existence of life. If I forgot any, please point it out to me. This is an argument of universal causation and can be summaries like this:

The universe has no creator/cause.

1) It has never existed so it has no beginning or end. This model requires no creator, but is also rather absurd. We are here! I mean, we can all agree that we do exist and something is going on here, right? If this is all just an illusion, then the argument can stop here because the question is just an illusion too.

2) It has always existed in a steady state and has no beginning or end. This requires no creator, but is also disproved by the First Law and not supported by the Second Law. Mathematically, a static, infinite universe just can't work and doesn't match observations either. This is like saying you've always been alive and will also never die, and we all know better than that.

The universe has a creator/cause.

3) It has a beginning and created itself. This is a formal contradiction because how can something create itself before it even exists? Nothing finite can cause itself because it is connected to another, prior cause. Sorry Darwin, self-creation just can't explain reality and lacks the imperative that this cause and effect universe requires. That's like saying you created yourself and did it before you were even born!

4) It has a beginning and God created it. By a process of elimination, we can say that if we do indeed exist in a finite universe that had a beginning that it could not have caused itself then God is the only other explanation that works! In other words, God is the uncaused cause. The universe exists because of a first cause, there can not be an infinite series of causes. Therefore, the first cause had to be God.

Statistical odds of random, advanced life (does God play dice?)

Also, let's look at the math involved. Consider a very simple microorganism consisting of 200 cells. Let's not even consider the math on where the cells came from (that's too much math and I'm not that smart) but just think of the combination of those cells to form a primitive organism. The probability of forming that ordered system by chance is 1 in 200 factorial. That factorial (expressed as 200!) can be calculated by multiplying all the numbers together from 1 to 200 and yields a result of 1 chance in 10E_375. I will not bother to type out 375 zeros, you get the point I'm sure. You actually have much better odds of jumping out of a plane with no parachute and surviving the impact every single day for the rest of your life even if you lived to be 100 years old! Would you really gamble on odds like that? As the complexity of a system increases, the odds of an ordered outcome occurring by chance become exponentially dismal, even for the random existence of a simple 200 celled organism. It's safe to say that it takes much more "faith" to believe in odds like that than it does to believe in God!

cont...

Phat Daddy · 06-24-2007, 11:11 PM

...cont

Why Christianity specifically?

So maybe you're starting to take the reality of God a bit more seriously now, but why Jesus Christ? People assume there's some reason that science and Christianity don't agree but that's just not the case. That particular misconception is mainly due to the broad institutionalization of Darwinian evolution, which doesn't require a creator. However, many of the great scientists were Christian, like Boyle, Newton, Pasteur, Joule, Kelvin, Faraday, Flemming, etc.. Biblical creationism correlates with the known scientific facts extremely well. Naturalism doesn't and neither do any other religions. I was 27 years old when I finally and reluctantly started to read the Bible. I was already set in my ways and it was hard to face the fact that I had been wrong for so long! The Bible was the last place I thought to look for truth. I have studied it in depth since then and have looked at the science and analyzed the facts. I have applied it and tested it in my own life and can not deny it holds scientific truth. I tried hard at first to deny and ignore it, even after I saw it starting to add up, but the science does support the Biblical account and is historically quite verifiable as to the people, places and events. Christ is the only god of any religion that actually died and rose again! The resurrection is the cornerstone of the Christian faith and what really separates Christianity from the rest. There where many witnesses and it is well documented and accounted even by secular historians such as Josephus that Christ was seen post-crucifixion many many times. No other religion in the world has a god that claimed he could do that. Buddha, Mohammed, etc.. never even made that claim. Only the one real God of the universe has that kind of power. The power over life and death. Only the god of the Bible even makes that claim. It's very simple, either Christ is who he said he was (the sovereign God of all creation) or he was a total lunatic. One way it makes sense and the other way it doesn't. I believe that Christ is the real deal based on the facts.

What is faith and can it be justified?

Faith is the substance of things hoped for, so once you see the manifestations of your faith becoming reality, that proof in turn substantiates your faith. You don't have to believe blindly, faith demonstrates and justifies itself over time. God can not be seen (at least I have not seen him) but can be clearly detected by indirect means, just like the position and velocity of sub-atomic particles are measured. You can never know the exact position and velocity of a particle at the same time because one is necessarily modified while observing the other, thus one of those measures can be directly observed and the other must be determined by indirect means. It does not mean that the particle lacks either property, only that they can not be accurately measured together directly. It's the same with God. You may never observe his existence directly, but when you see the effect God has in your life, it becomes easy to recognize that he is the cause.

The Message

I don't know what you believe, but I would encourage you to consider these arguments and scientific principles. This is the most important choice you'll ever make and your eternal destiny is influenced by it so don't take my word, look at the facts and seek the truth for yourself. It's simple, just take a few minutes and go some place private and ask God for the truth and he will reveal it to you. Christ is the only thing I am absolutely sure of in life and if you seek him, he'll show you he's there. It's an understanding that you can't verbally express or explain sometimes, but you just know once you receive it. Plus, you see him working in your life and the blessings he gives. He's gracious and loving and he takes good care of his kids. People think that God wants to make a bunch of stupid rules or they have to work their way up to heaven, but that's a lie! God is not looking down from heaven shaking his finger at you and waiting for you to screw up so he can smack you. That's what some churches and religious denominations might want you to think and that's definitely what your enemy Satan wants you to think, but that's a whole other issue that I won't get into right now. I am generally not fond of the church for political reasons, but you don't need anyone else in order to have a relationship with god. He already did all the work for you when he died on a cross. All you have to do is talk with him in prayer and he does the rest. If you accept him as he is, he will accept you as you are, so I'm not ashamed to tell people when they ask. I am a scientist and a Christian too!

So there you have it. That's the short version of why I believe and how to reconcile science and Christianity. If you never read another post of mine, please seriously consider this one and seek the truth for yourself. You will find what you seek. Amen and God bless!

I highly recommend this book by Lee Strobel to anyone interested in a more detailed explanation of the scientific principles I've discussed. Lee also makes some other excellent arguments that I didn't even address here. Check it out!

The Case for a Creator: A Journalist Investigates Scientific Evidence That Points Toward God by Lee Strobel

Amazon.com: The Case for a Creator: A Journalist Investigates Scientific Evidence That Points Toward God: Books: Lee Strobel

karzma · 06-24-2007, 11:16 PM

Quote:

The psalmist says, "Great are the works of the Lord, pondered by all those who delight in them." Basically, every scientist seeks to understand the mind of God. Even the most hard-core agnostic or dietistic scientist (as I use to be) accepts on faith that the universe is ordered. There is a rational basis to existence that is evident in this order. This is shown in the laws of science and math which are very predicable. So I think many scientists will agree that there is a god. How else can you explain order and design? The Second Law of thermodynamics states that entropy (or disorder) always increases with time, so we basically live in a decaying universe. All you have to do is stop making repairs around the house to see that principle at work! Eventually, the entire universe will "burn out" as it continues to expand and be reduced to nothing more that low level, background radiation mostly in the form of microwaves. How then does life develop and thrive when the whole universe is in a state of decay? How is it that there are sophisticated, self-replicating organisms in the universe, known as life, that develop in spite of the Second Law? It is know as the Anthropic Principle and it shows divine providence without a doubt. If there was not a god that favored mankind, it simple could not have developed. Life shows an extremely high level of order and complexity that must have been created because order is not the natural state of the universe, disorder is. In other words, there is design and design requires a designer! Therefore, there must be a god.

No, because the earth is not a closed system. The earth is giving and getting energy from the galaxy around it. The earth could produce life even though the universe is a closed system (or maybe the universe isn't? we don't know. science hasn't touched 1% of 1% of 0.000000000000000000000000000000001% of what there is to know about our universe)

Quote:

Atheistic scientists are a different story. They believe that life resulted from random combinations of simple molecules in a spontaneous fashion and that the universe just happened without cause or that it always existed in a static state, but that's not mathematically legitimate and does not agree with common observation. Even Darwin said of the human eye that the odds that it "could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I confess, absurd in the highest possible degree." Darwinian evolution is simply not possible. It requires transitional life forms that do not exist in the fossil record. The "missing links" as they are called. Why are there well defined species in the fossil record with no intermediate forms? There are gigantic gaps in the record that can't be explained! I can sympathize with the rational of an agnostic scientist, but the atheistic scientist is simply a fool that can not be taken seriously. There's just way too much evidence against the spontaneous appearance and progression of life or "naturalism" as some call it. Creation is the best explanation, and that is obviously precluded if there if no creator. Besides, if law and order are really the products of a mindless natural process, the human mind must be viewed as an accident too in a series of many accidents. If that's so, how can we have any confidence that our mind could even recognize the truth anyway?! How could a concept like truth even be possible? It just doesn't make sense without God. There would be no need and no reason for any of this observed order plus the observation itself would necessarily be questionable.

Evolution is real. We see it every day.

When two animals have sex and make a baby, that baby has different DNA from the parents. You agree yourself that animals can adapt to their environments. Well, over millions of years, a small animal may "constantly adapt" to get bigger and bigger and its body structure will change over time (a tiny bit every generation over millions of years) and that way you can see a mouse evolve into a rino-like-creature. Obviously the rino-like-creature's DNA will be so different from the mouse that the mouse sperm/egg would never be able to combine with rino sperm/egg to make a baby. So that would be evolution of a new species.

Me believing that could happen is NOT FAITH. You see? because you AGREE that adaption occurs, then whos to say adaption cannot KEEP OCCURING over millions of years and you end up with an animal much bigger (or smaller) ???? if you think that can't happen, then you think theres some pre-placed limits on adaption? no. It's about DNA changing, and sex over millions of years the DNA that produces an animal better suited to it's environment will pass on and mutate and the new DNA will continue if it's suited to it's environment.

Evolution is REAL. a mouse could evolve into a rino-like creature over millions of years. Every animal around us is proof of evolution because we can find records of their family tree, and where/how they evolved from.

EXCEPT HUMANS

Evolution is REAL and FACTUAL. However, we simply havn't figured out how man-kind evolved yet since we cannot find any evidence at all of where we evolved from, what our family gene tree is like, or how it happened. We have proven that cats and dogs are products of evolution, because we have found evidence, but we can't find any evidence to how man evolved (I agree with you there)

im pretty sure homo erectus is our ancestor. we just need to figure out what is between erectus and us.. to me, homo-erectus is not evidence that man is a product of evolution unless we can prove we came from erectus. once we find what is between us and homo-erectus, which I am sure we will, then that will seal the deal.

CleanSlateScott · 06-24-2007, 11:23 PM

So god created us with order, and made the universe in disorder? So did god make a mistake when he made the world?

Wannabefit08 · 06-24-2007, 11:29 PM

I've never seen anything in science that remotely dismisses the existance of God, nor suggests that he isn't real...of course, there's nothing to suggest he does exist either, but if you believe Science and nature are the causes of God, then there is nothing that directly contradicts it...but again it comes back to the duo nature of the argument. For everyone like me who thinks God is behind it, and can honestly say nothing has come close to disproving the existance of God others can (also legitimately) say that there isn't really evidence for his existance either... (even though I consider nature and science evidence of God, I can see why people can't support that.).

I guess it depends on the nature of the person and what they want to see. If you believe in God, there's nothing to say that God isn't behind it all, but if you disbelieve, there's nothing to say he was either, so I guess it's all in the eye of the beholder.

Wannabefit08 · 06-24-2007, 11:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CleanSlateScott

So god created us with order, and made the universe in disorder? So did god make a mistake when he made the world?

Don't chaos and order kinda balance each other out?

You can't have chaos without order, and vice versa.

CleanSlateScott · 06-24-2007, 11:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wannabefit08

Don't chaos and order kinda balance each other out?

You can't have chaos without order, and vice versa.

I dont know....do chaos and order balance each other out? That just sounds like a fairy book ending ....in which good usually wins over evil. It dosn't balance out at all though in reality becasue bad usually overcomes good.

(wanting to learn, not trying to cause argument)
(athiest)

Wannabefit08 · 06-24-2007, 11:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CleanSlateScott

I dont know....do chaos and order balance each other out? That just sounds like a fairy book ending ....in which good usually wins over evil. It dosn't balance out at all though in reality becasue bad usually overcomes good.

(wanting to learn, not trying to cause argument)
(athiest)

I'm not exactly a scientest myself, but it seems to me that there's usually a counter balance to everything....I don't know if it can be proved, but I guess I do believe in the whole ying/yang, darkness/light thing.

I wouldn't be so sure about bad overcoming good too...look at WW2, one of the most vital battles in the history of mankind, and I think we all agree that the ''good'' triumped. It just seems that with all the bad we see in the world, it can seem overwhelming...but good does happen. It's just harder to see.

user1245464 · 06-25-2007, 12:06 AM

1). The earth is not a closed system, therefore the 2nd law of therm. doesnt apply, etc etc, so on and so-forth.

2.) As for the 1st law, also known as the Law of Conservation of Mass/Matter, does indeed state that matter cannot be created or destroyed. There are, however, a few ways around this. First, though I don't believe the universe just "came from nothing", those that do might say that since their was "nothing" to begin with, laws of the universe did not apply, since there was no universe to apply them to. It is like gravity: Did this nothingness have gravity? No. Therefore, we really cannot use the Law of Cons. of Mass to argue for god. The physical laws of the universe break down at a certain point, ie before the big bang. In fact, I use it to argue AGAINST god. God supposedly "created the heavens and the earth", before creating the animals, etc. Since the universe had supposedly existed before the animals, etc, and the laws did apply, how did he simply "create" these things? Let me guess, because he's god and he can do anything? Ok. You got me. He does exist.

Personally I believe that there was no creation, for the simple reason that matter/mass CANNOT be created or destroyed. I believe, like everything else, that the universe is a cycle. Big Bang, Big Crunch, Big Bang, Big Crunch. We observe cycles everywhere in our existing world/universe. The food chain, ecology systems, water cycle, life cycles... cycles everywhere. They are what keep things balanced. So, the universe, IMO, was never created. It just was. Kinda like your "god".

CleanSlateScott · 06-25-2007, 12:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wannabefit08

I'm not exactly a scientest myself, but it seems to me that there's usually a counter balance to everything....I don't know if it can be proved, but I guess I do believe in the whole ying/yang, darkness/light thing.

I wouldn't be so sure about bad overcoming good too...look at WW2, one of the most vital battles in the history of mankind, and I think we all agree that the ''good'' triumped. It just seems that with all the bad we see in the world, it can seem overwhelming...but good does happen. It's just harder to see.

You are right that good exists, and good things happen, and I am grateful that good does trump evil when it does, as in WWII...but that is just one example...and a BIG one at that. But does that one event, or any of the other good-winning events equal, or even out-weigh all the bad that occurs?

I hate to sound so negative, becasue I'm a really positive person, i usually see the cup as half full, but for this context, im focusing on the more grim view.

geetar_joe · 06-25-2007, 07:43 AM

1. The argument from the Second Law of thermodynamics is false. The nuclear boilings of our Sun create far more entropy than is destroyed through evolution. Not the energy-related argument when it leaves out the biggest source of energy within a few lightyears, huh?

2. The law of conservation of energy does not necessitate creation. The theory breaks down at the quantum level and quantum-time.

3. Darwinian gaps. Do you realise that more than 99% of everything that has ever lived is fossilized? You should marvel at what we do have.

4. Cosmological arguments. The person that wrote this obviously got stumped at the theory of general relativity, and left their research at that.

5. Random chance. This argument is so moronic its not worth rebutting again.

6. The resurrection. Right, so you're saying it makes more sense that Jesus died and rose from the dead than he lied or people embellished the details after his death?

7. As for the observation evidence, what a load of horse****. The position seems to be thus:

If science suggests that God does not exist, then the existence of God is beyond the realm of science. But hey, if a creationist can fashion some sort of argument regarding the Second Law of Thermodynamics, science is irrefutable.

Think about it, and you'll realise how daft the original post was.

DaCougarMech · 06-25-2007, 11:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phat Daddy

4) It has a beginning and God created it. By a process of elimination, we can say that if we do indeed exist in a finite universe that had a beginning that it could not have caused itself then God is the only other explanation that works! In other words, God is the uncaused cause. The universe exists because of a first cause, there can not be an infinite series of causes. Therefore, the first cause had to be God.

this is all i had to read to dismiss your entire arguement

basement iron · 06-25-2007, 12:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by geetar_joe

1. The argument from the Second Law of thermodynamics is false. The nuclear boilings of our Sun create far more entropy than is destroyed through evolution. Not the energy-related argument when it leaves out the biggest source of energy within a few lightyears, huh?

2. The law of conservation of energy does not necessitate creation. The theory breaks down at the quantum level and quantum-time.

3. Darwinian gaps. Do you realise that more than 99% of everything that has ever lived is fossilized? You should marvel at what we do have.

4. Cosmological arguments. The person that wrote this obviously got stumped at the theory of general relativity, and left their research at that.

5. Random chance. This argument is so moronic its not worth rebutting again.

6. The resurrection. Right, so you're saying it makes more sense that Jesus died and rose from the dead than he lied or people embellished the details after his death?

7. As for the observation evidence, what a load of horse****. The position seems to be thus:

If science suggests that God does not exist, then the existence of God is beyond the realm of science. But hey, if a creationist can fashion some sort of argument regarding the Second Law of Thermodynamics, science is irrefutable.

Think about it, and you'll realise how daft the original post was.

Very nice. Brutal KO of the OP.

1dayIWillBeBig · 06-25-2007, 02:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phat Daddy

4) It has a beginning and God created it. By a process of elimination, we can say that if we do indeed exist in a finite universe that had a beginning that it could not have caused itself then God is the only other explanation that works! In other words, God is the uncaused cause. The universe exists because of a first cause, there can not be an infinite series of causes. Therefore, the first cause had to be God.

Why is your God the uncaused cause? Surely the chain can go farther back then that.

Why can't the chain go: Universe--Your God--An even better God that created yours and he has to answer to--An even better God--etc....--Until finally stopping at God # 1,000,000 or whatever. It's not infinite.

Fidelis · 06-25-2007, 02:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by geetar_joe

3. Darwinian gaps. Do you realise that more than 99% of everything that has ever lived is fossilized? You should marvel at what we do have.

Actually, this probably isn't true. Fossilization is so rare that 99% of things that have ever lived aren't fossilized. I'm not talking about species, I'm talking about total number of organisms. It's probably more like 99.9999%, but who really knows?

Fossilization is rare, yes, but we nevertheless have an impressive fossil record, and more is being found every year.

totalrookie · 06-25-2007, 02:36 PM

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...64&q=zeitgeist

Watch that - it's slow at first, but awesome.

samian · 06-25-2007, 02:44 PM

I have never read such a mockery of physical laws.

"It states that energy can change forms, but can not be created or destroyed. ...The First Law shows that the universe must have had a finite beginning and that it could not have just created itself."

The first law HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH TIME. It is made up of differential thermodynamic variables which are ENSEMBLE AVERAGES and NOT absolute physical numbers. Even the statistical basis of these averages, which goes as deep as multiple body quantum mechanics, there are underlying assumptions of constant forces, eg. coulumb forces, which are not satisfied by the model of inflation during the big bang.

Basically, the writer of this piece needs to take a REAL physics degree; partly out of anger I did some research and Lee Strobel seems to have a law degree, and one in journalism. And to anyone that quotes more of this pseudo-science:

YOU NEED TO STOP READING POPULAR BOOKS AND START READING PEER-REVIEWED SCIENCE IF YOU WANT A PROPER OPINION.

samian · 06-25-2007, 02:48 PM

and as for the second law, this is another gross oversimplification.

the second law states that the change in entropy in an isolated system, ie. integral sum of the heat added to a system weighted against the temperature of addition, will never be negative.

to apply this to a biological, non-isolated system, without any sort of rigorous detail, is never going to convince someone who it does not succeed to bewilder.

Phat Daddy · 06-26-2007, 02:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by samian

... Basically, the writer of this piece needs to take a REAL physics degree ...

I have a degree in Nuclear Biophysics and one in Chemistry as well, so sorry if that fails your criteria. We can talk QED all day if you like fella. Remember, I did not post this to prove God exists or argue with you guys about metaphysics pre-time. Those are separate issues. Only to demonstrate as basically as the average reader may be able to contemplate that science does 'support' the existence of God, and that was indeed established. I hear a lot of objection, but as of yet nobody has brought any evidence to refute that premise.

Have a great day!

samian · 06-26-2007, 03:02 AM

There is little scientific opposition to this because there is scarcer still scientific support of it.

If you have those degrees then you are better than the author of that text, but your support still does not make popular writing scientifically valid.

geetar_joe · 06-26-2007, 04:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fidelis

Actually, this probably isn't true. Fossilization is so rare that 99% of things that have ever lived aren't fossilized. I'm not talking about species, I'm talking about total number of organisms. It's probably more like 99.9999%, but who really knows?

Fossilization is rare, yes, but we nevertheless have an impressive fossil record, and more is being found every year.

My apologies, it was meant to read aren't fossilized.

JBDW · 06-26-2007, 10:59 AM

If the OP, as he so claims, has two degrees in science, he should seriously re-evaluate his education if he considers the original post to be some sort of scientific support for God.

daniel77 · 06-26-2007, 11:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phat Daddy

I have a degree in Nuclear Biophysics and one in Chemistry as well, so sorry if that fails your criteria. We can talk QED all day if you like fella. Remember, I did not post this to prove God exists or argue with you guys about metaphysics pre-time. Those are separate issues. Only to demonstrate as basically as the average reader may be able to contemplate that science does 'support' the existence of God, and that was indeed established. I hear a lot of objection, but as of yet nobody has brought any evidence to refute that premise.

Have a great day!

Good read, where did you get that article from?

fappy · 06-26-2007, 11:25 AM

Funny how the premise of science supporting religion becomes science supporting Christianity (if only because we must assume that it's the only REAL faith).

Phat Daddy · 06-26-2007, 08:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by daniel77

Good read, where did you get that article from?

I wrote it, but hey, I'm not a writer so give me a break, lol. It is simply my conclusion and testimony about forming it. I am that scientist and was once an agnostic, at best. People here have nothing to lose by considering the facts, but indeed they have been poisoned by religion so they are spiteful it seems.

timmy47 · 06-26-2007, 08:49 PM

here we go again. i aint reading that but from peoples responses i can tell its most likely old refuted claims over again. i read the part on evolution and it shows you have a misunderstanding of how evolution works. i bet you didnt even know that both micro and macro evolution are fact. yea thats right. they've been observed. you are also thinking of the process wrong as well demonstrated by your eye quote. im not even going to bother with this one. the fact that you put the second law of thermodynamics claim in there points to you not really knowing what you are arguing against. i seriously recomend you do a lot of reasearch before trying to prove god through science. if that were the case, we would have come to that conclusion.

JBDW · 06-26-2007, 08:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by timmy47

here we go again. i aint reading that but from peoples responses i can tell its most likely old refuted claims over again. i read the part on evolution and it shows you have a misunderstanding of how evolution works. i bet you didnt even know that both micro and macro evolution are fact. yea thats right. they've been observed. you are also thinking of the process wrong as well demonstrated by your eye quote. im not even going to bother with this one. the fact that you put the second law of thermodynamics claim in there points to you not really knowing what you are arguing against. i seriously recomend you do a lot of reasearch before trying to prove god through science. if that were the case, we would have come to that conclusion.

Ditto. I read the part about the second law of thermodynamics and realised that he doesn't know what the hell he's talking about. So much for two degrees in science.