Evidence for God from Science

RickD wrote:

It seems you along with many other disagree with the idea of molecules to man, which is fair enough, but I'm not seeing much substance behind your particular claim.

Proinsias, you're asking for a lot from twinc. He doesn't do "substance". He does dogmatism.

exactly - the reason being because there is substance in what you say but no substance in substance - twinc

Proinsias wrote:I gather that's what you believe but saying that the way, truth and life of the world created all life isn't much of a proof in my book. It's an unprovable theological and philosophical position.

Creating life in labs doesn't really conflict with your stance, humans creating non-human life doesn't break your so called law of only life begetting life.

It seems you along with many other disagree with the idea of molecules to man, which is fair enough, but I'm not seeing much substance behind your particular claim.

if you wish to accept from goo to zoo to you - go ahead but better still come home soon - twinc

twinc wrote:

Proinsias wrote:I gather that's what you believe but saying that the way, truth and life of the world created all life isn't much of a proof in my book. It's an unprovable theological and philosophical position.

Creating life in labs doesn't really conflict with your stance, humans creating non-human life doesn't break your so called law of only life begetting life.

It seems you along with many other disagree with the idea of molecules to man, which is fair enough, but I'm not seeing much substance behind your particular claim.

if you wish to accept from goo to zoo to you - go ahead but better still come home soon - twinc

See, Proinsias? No substance. All dogmatism.

I read that some scientists assembled to inform God that he was redundant amd that they could now create life and started to gather some bags of dust only to be told to go and get their own dust - twinc

twinc wrote:I read that some scientists assembled to inform God that he was redundant amd that they could now create life and started to gather some bags of dust only to be told to go and get their own dust - twinc

Twinc that is the first comprehensible post you've made. Too bad it's one we've heard like a quadrillion times.

twinc wrote:I read that some scientists assembled to inform God that he was redundant amd that they could now create life and started to gather some bags of dust only to be told to go and get their own dust - twinc

I've read that many times too, I think someone made it up though. I'd be more than happy to see some evidence that it happened.

Coming home appears to involve agreeing with you, and too be honest I've not really got a very clear idea of what you believe. The few fragments I've gleaned from your posts here present your system of belief as a rather strange interpretation of the Christian canon supported by some soundbites and catchphrases.

From what I gather you believe that reincarnation is little more than a way to fill in the time until one gets around to accepting or rejecting Jesus as lord and saviour and that you really aren't very keen on the notion of evolution, or the notion of evolutionary reincarnation which I've never heard of until you mentioned it. And that you are very keen on people coming home.

Proinsias wrote:

twinc wrote:I read that some scientists assembled to inform God that he was redundant amd that they could now create life and started to gather some bags of dust only to be told to go and get their own dust - twinc

I've read that many times too, I think someone made it up though. I'd be more than happy to see some evidence that it happened.

Coming home appears to involve agreeing with you, and too be honest I've not really got a very clear idea of what you believe. The few fragments I've gleaned from your posts here present your system of belief as a rather strange interpretation of the Christian canon supported by some soundbites and catchphrases.

From what I gather you believe that reincarnation is little more than a way to fill in the time until one gets around to accepting or rejecting Jesus as lord and saviour and that you really aren't very keen on the notion of evolution, or the notion of evolutionary reincarnation which I've never heard of until you mentioned it. And that you are very keen on people coming home.

Not too often we agree but when we do it is worth mentioning.

Twinc, seriously bro, from one Catholic to another, you are doing a huge disservice not only to Catholicism but to Christianity in general. And you know what the main problem is? For everything you hold sacred man, WE STILL HAVE NO CLUE WHAT YOU BELIEVE! I'm sorry but I had to shout that out loud because your vagueness is simply driving me up the wall. I understand the age issue and all that but you'd think because of your advanced age you would not want to waste any time and be precise in your dialogue but we've gotten nothing but meaningless drivel out of you. You could very well be a genius, we don't know. We simply can't tell from your vague posts. For the love of God man, please, just say what's on your mind and for the last time, please please, stop inviting us to come home (unless of course you're doing the grilling ).

Well, unless life can come to be on its own with NO external influence what so ever, then there will always be a "first cause".
Unless some scientist somewhere makes a vacuum and, with no help from anything, life suddenly happens, then the question of How life came to be will never be answered 100%.

PaulSacramento wrote:Well, unless life can come to be on its own with NO external influence what so ever, then there will always be a "first cause".
Unless some scientist somewhere makes a vacuum and, with no help from anything, life suddenly happens, then the question of How life came to be will never be answered 100%.

Paul, even if this was possible, intelligent life(the scientist), would be what created that life. Not to mention whatever(God) created the scientist, and the things he uses to do the experiment.

RickD wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:Well, unless life can come to be on its own with NO external influence what so ever, then there will always be a "first cause".
Unless some scientist somewhere makes a vacuum and, with no help from anything, life suddenly happens, then the question of How life came to be will never be answered 100%.

Paul, even if this was possible, intelligent life(the scientist), would be what created that life. Not to mention whatever(God) created the scientist, and the things he uses to do the experiment.

Yes, indeed.
My point was that unless we observe life being created out of nothing in a sheer vacuum then it is impossible to state that such a thing can happen.
Any scientist WITHOUT an agenda will tell you that.
Science can only comment on what it observes and only when it is repeatable is it "confirmed" by science.
Science may "know" there was a Big Bang but h as no idea how it came to be and science, based on what it knows about THIS universe, can only say that something must have caused it since EVERYTHING in THIS universe has a cause.