Evidence for God from Science

Yikes!...they dumped my avatar!

Check out the essential doctrine page on the home site. That will give you an idea of where we stand here Still toeing the party line, eh, Z/G? Interesting debate. But...so much reading...it always gets tedious on this forum and requires a lot of time to give these topics the justice they deserve. ...

huh?
Looks like "an ape" grew wings and flew away. His posts are deleted.

The conclusions are obviously debated and the evidence very preliminary. As you have discovered, Trinkhaus is one of the leading proponents of the idea and clearly much of what we thought we knew about HSN has been turned upside-dwon by recent discoveries. Here are few articles to get everyone's fee...

... the Stone Age mind which evolved over the last several hundred thousand years was perhaps more selective about mixing their genes with outsiders. Or perhaps not so selective. There is growing support for the idea that HSN did NOT go extinct from famine, disease, or warfare; but rather, he was b...

Hi G/L, If I recall properly, you and I have had discussions on this topic before. If your opening post indeed reflects the contentions of Mr. Animal, then I agree with him. I wouldn't however say ID is non-scientific because it has religious implications, rather it is non-scientific because it is ....

Interesting discussion. I suppose we are defining the "universe" as the totallity of physical matter and not necessarily space itself. Is the current speed of expansion sufficient to overcome its own eventual gravitational attraction? Yes as it seems the expansion is NOT slowing: http://im...

If you were familiar with the assumptions of astro and quantum physics I am but I am certainly not a physicist. :wink: Basically, for the singularity to have expanded (the big bang), it has to have been observed by a sentient being, which exists outside on a plain seperate from our universe. A bein...

...In other words, this is evidence against the multiregional theory....it is a category error to assume because Science is to be disregarded in one area (e.g., human origins), that it ought to be discarded in all areas.... This thread is a rebuttal of the global flood and the hypothesis that manki...

There are many unknowns that will probably never get answered between the Bible and conventional science. Yes, the Bible is not a science book which is why we shouldn't get too hung up on how God did things.. Only that he did create it all.. If, by this response, you mean, there are unknowns which ...

Response to Kurieuo Obviously, I also agree that Scripture is not twisted to support a Day-Age perspective, or even a local flood, as FM sees it. In fact, I am amazed that so many global flood proponents fail to consider the events of Genesis 8 where it says that the tops of mountains were seen by N...

Response to Gman's post - I will say this however if you don't mind, if you believe that God created the universe in six literal days this aligns more with YEC beliefs than OEC IMO. My belief aligns with YEC only insofar as we both believe the earth was create din 6 literal days. When? "In the ...

Again... The ancient Jews had no idea how big our world is today. If you can produce an ancient map by them showing the world as we know it today, I will gladly retract my statements.. I can pretty much guarantee they realized it stretched from the Persian Gulf to the Nile, and I am sure they reali...

Before I make any specific responses to the global vs. local flood argument - which is what this thread is supposed to be about, allow me to address several points for clarification as I see a lot of labeling going on here. And since there are currently three or four people actively engaged in this ...

We've been through this before, erets does NOT have a literal world wide meaning... Its well understood that erets can mean earth or land (the modifier kol meaning whole or complete). It is also clear the words earth and land can easily be interchanged in practically any context without significant...