Evidence for God from Science

Agreed

Proinsias wrote: I was not intending to draw a strict dichotomy of literal/allegorical, I appreciate there are a myriad of opinions. I read the thread linked a while back, but admittedly skimmed parts. Reading Genesis I find myself rejecting what I would consider the view of most Evangelical Biblic...

Philip, I do appreciate the argument from design can be made without recourse to biology. Much of your reply to myself is regarding the truth, proven or unproven nature of evolution which doesn't really mesh with my understanding of it, it's a reasonable working model subject to change just as we fi...

Evolution as a theory isn't impacted by an acceptance or rejection of the metaphysical notion of an uncaused cause, nor does it contradict, or depend upon, theism. It plays well with a variety of metaphysical, philosophical & religious positions. What it does do is raise some questions about the...

Nice one Jac, as my wife is midway through a masters at the moment I'm not brave enough use up printer resources on a book but I will have a read of it on a suitable screen.

Thanks.

Did anyone say evolution is true?

All is well, carry on.

Audie:

I've been following the thread and agree with pretty much all you say, I didn't miss the topic, just felt compelled to type when seeing the resurrection of Christ compared to the Roman Empire. It seems akin to comparing the existence of the British Empire to the authenticity of Shakespeare.

If this is true the current scientific model of the history of the earth will have to be heavily modified. It's a theory that has been around for nearly 100 years and has been widely discredited for half of the time in light of recent of observations. Not to say it is incorrect but the burden of pro...

One could say, "i looked, but found no evidence that there ever was a Roman Empire." Hardly something to take pride in, but, there's all types. I agree wholeheartedly. Such is also the case with yet another well documented historical record, i.e the resurrection. But like you say, there a...

Assuming a time machine, who would beat Hitler in a fight?

Daniel wrote: Well that's just stupid, because it ain't "normal". Like I said earlier, calling it normal does not make it normal, it's just a fancy name that doesn't really mean anything. I think my original point still stands. Of course it's normal. That's why it's called the normal meth...

No, many often equivocate on this definition without thinking it through. It's not really a good definition of nature at all because it just assumes that humans aren't a part of nature, but it doesn't explain why. My exchanges with Kenny here are about the why? -- whether humans do in fact transcen...

I don't buy it, but it doesn't negate it.