Evidence for God from Science

Byblos wrote: Kidding aside though, do you have any resources that explain the similarities such as the chromosomal fusion, ERV insertions, etc, from a progressive creationist or YEC perspective? Byblos, It's not very in depth, but it's something: http://www.reasons.org/articles/chromosome-2-the-be...

Miller is an evolutionist. Byblos is looking for a progressive creationist or young earth creationist perspective. Ah, interesting approach, viz., ignore a Christian biology scientist -- sort of a rose-colored glasses approach to learning. I learn vastly more from people with whom I disagree , than...

ignoring science and teaching their kids that the literal interpretation of the Bible should be treated as a science textbook. That's a problem.. Because the "literal interpretation" of the Bible doesn't call for a global flood. Also the sequence of creation events recorded in Genesis can...

If there is really only 1% difference in human and chimp, then I am definately going to protect that 1% of my DNA. :lol: That's a pretty important 1% in my estimation. If that gets damaged, you'll be swinging from branches and throwing poo at the neighbors. Maybe we should start lobbying for Chimp ...

In any case, I feel much of my beliefs with the MN discussion, including any supposed agenda I have to the CSI question, gets further clarified in my later posts from Mon Nov 11, 2013 8:41 am onward . The discussion of MN was moved on with my more recent exchanges with Percy. I've looked at your re...

Must we really rely on supernatural insight to reason that lying, cheating, etc., are counterproductive? Evidently chimps and dolphins don't think so. Hehe... counterproductive to what -- someone's own gain? Yes, but you conveniently forgot to mention everyone else's gain. Selfishness is shortsight...

MN is clearly tautologous, unless wishing to highlight some sort of obscure slant against belief in God. Copernicus did science without needing to understand MN, because certain methods that MN claims to provide are actually implicit to Science. Only Copernicus did his science without basing his en...

Reason? Reason has nothing to do with the Golden Rule. Here's a "golden rule" that I see as reasonable, and which most people tend to follow in their everydays lives. And it's one that makes logical sense: Look after yourself first, and then anyone else thereafter as much as it profits yo...

Reason? Reason has nothing to do with the Golden Rule. Here's a "golden rule" that I see as reasonable, and which most people tend to follow in their everydays lives. And it's one that makes logical sense: Look after yourself first, and then anyone else thereafter as much as it profits yo...

Wikipedia quote from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism_(philosophy ) Naturalism can intuitively be separated into a metaphysical and a methodological component."[3] Metaphysical here refers to the philosophical study of the nature of reality. Philosopher Paul Kurtz argues that nature is...

Where am I trying to "ground" the Golden Rule or the Commandments in objectivity, whatever than means? No wonder topics swell to 44 pages, rarely reaching common ground between opposing viewpoints. I'm just saying that most of the Commandments reasonably follow from Golden Rule versions, ...

Ooops. I didn't notice the recent postings after your 1st question about MN. Sorry about that! Either of your wiki references seems OK as a starting point for defining "methodological naturalism". So for now lets go with the wikipedia definition that you've opted for. So then, what would ...

Commandments 4 thru 10 reasonably follow from Golden Rule versions, e.g., "I don't want you to lie to me, so I won't lie to you." In practice, I agree with you, i.e., those 7 Commandments haven't "worked out" well, but the problem is with us, not with the Golden Rule. If you had...

http://www.sfgate.com/science/article/Galaxy-may-have-11-billion-Earth-like-planets-4954943.php Has anyone seen this yet? I have a feeling like similar "findings" they will later conclude under further evaluation these planets may not be able to support life. Yes, I just read it, nothing ...

I would say atheists can be moral, there's no question about that. The problem is they have no basis on which they can account for this sense of morality, other than perhaps the golden rule. And we know how well the GR has worked out. First, FL slams "Scientific American", http://discussi...