Evidence for God from Science

Audie wrote: ( oh and come now, "naturalist"? )

In the sense of one who believes there is no such thing as a miracle or that there is anything spiritual in existence.

jpbg33 wrote:The bible has never been proven wrong so stop replacing it with something that has been proven wrong mean times. if you wont to replace it you must prove it wrong first.

Good one, change the subject from how that shabby con man fooled you so embarrassingly easily with that chariot story.

It wont hurt it is good for you to admit it; live and learn, be smarter next time. You've much to learn, my friend, even from a awful asian girl. You learned to spell it as "proof", not "prof". Learn next how to admit you made a little mistake!

Rob wrote:

Audie wrote: ( oh and come now, "naturalist"? )

In the sense of one who believes there is no such thing as a miracle or that there is anything spiritual in existence.

To me it conjures images of a 19th century British gentleman of leisure who putters about his country estate taking note of
the whereabouts of Ms hedgehog, and when the daffodils bloomed.

To me, Im just another representative of the single most common, nothing-special people on earth han chinese.

Audie wrote: To me it conjures images of a 19th century British gentleman of leisure who putters about his country estate taking note of
the whereabouts of Ms hedgehog, and when the daffodils bloomed.

Why in the world would you have a problem with that? Because that's pretty awesome, IMO!

"Come along, cedric! We'll be late for tea! Pip pip!"

I don't know that was trying to be, but I like it.

Audie wrote: Dont wish me that, though, I dont believe Saul for a minute. He was to Jesus as Brigham Young to J Smith, a cynical
exploiter and self seeker.

Just out of curiosity, why do you say that? We know he associated with the other Apostles and even called Peter out on something in Antioch. And he even went to his death under Nero as far as I can tell... I mean, of course he wasn't perfect, but I don't see any reason we shouldn't believe him.
If you were a self-seeking person seeking riches why in the world would you choose heavily persecuted Christianity to exploit during that time? It just doesn't make sense to me.

Actually I'm according to science smarter then most people so I'm pretty sure I know what I read. I do not read a lot so consequently my spelling and grammar are not that grate but my logic is superior to most. People a lot of the time assume how logical someone is by there spelling and grammar But in reality spelling and grammar has nothing to do with logic.

Being clever doesn't necessarily make you smart either. Being open to new ideas makes you smart.

Storyteller wrote:Being clever doesn't necessarily make you smart either. Being open to new ideas makes you smart.

Having the capacity to admit being wrong does wonders too. Thomas Edison was famous for saying things like
"Every time I make a mistake it gets me that much closer to getting it right!".

being open to new good ideas not any ideas that comes along. If evolution could hold up and not be proven wrong and could discredit what is being believed. Then yes we would have to consider it but to just come up with something with out making sure it holds up just because you don't agree with the one that dose hold up doesn't make sense. Why do we have to teach evolution when there is a more solid account of how thing began. Just a few problems I have with evolution "what cased the big bang" "why did thing stop evolving" " what started life". There are more but that is a few of them.

jpbg33 wrote:being open to new good ideas not any ideas that comes along. If evolution could hold up and not be proven wrong and could discredit what is being believed. Then yes we would have to consider it but to just come up with something with out making sure it holds up just because you don't agree with the one that dose hold up doesn't make sense. Why do we have to teach evolution when there is a more solid account of how thing began. Just a few problems I have with evolution "what cased the big bang" "why did thing stop evolving" " what started life". There are more but that is a few of them.

jpbg,

"what cased(caused) the big bang" and " what started life" are not a part of the Theory of Evolution. So, at least those questions don't cause a problem for evolution.

jpbg33 wrote:Actually I'm according to science smarter then most people so I'm pretty sure I know what I read. I do not read a lot so consequently my spelling and grammar are not that grate but my logic is superior to most. People a lot of the time assume how logical someone is by there spelling and grammar But in reality spelling and grammar has nothing to do with logic.

Good that you recognize your lack of language skills.
Now, you may want to also recognize how that could explain
why you didnt get it that even AIG wont endorse him. Did you notice
how they pointed out some of his transparent lies, and the observation
that discovery of such as chariots..if true..would be exciting world wide
news?

Logically, now, why do you really suppose there
are no headlines, no teams of archaeologists with
their latest discoveries?

If you suggest conspiracy I wont even bother to finish reading
the post.

Just a few problems I have with your questions.

jpbg33 wrote:"what cased the big bang"

Nothing to do with evolution.

jpbg33 wrote:"why did thing stop evolving"

The current view is that things didn't and (I believe) that things never will.

jpbg33 wrote:" what started life"

Nothing to do with evolution.

Before you continue to make a giant fool of yourself, it may be better if you first define evolution. Then we can go from there I guess.

Rob wrote:

Audie wrote: To me it conjures images of a 19th century British gentleman of leisure who putters about his country estate taking note of
the whereabouts of Ms hedgehog, and when the daffodils bloomed.

Why in the world would you have a problem with that? Because that's pretty awesome, IMO!

"Come along, cedric! We'll be late for tea! Pip pip!"

I don't know that was trying to be, but I like it.

Audie wrote: Dont wish me that, though, I dont believe Saul for a minute. He was to Jesus as Brigham Young to J Smith, a cynical
exploiter and self seeker.

Just out of curiosity, why do you say that? We know he associated with the other Apostles and even called Peter out on something in Antioch. And he even went to his death under Nero as far as I can tell... I mean, of course he wasn't perfect, but I don't see any reason we shouldn't believe him.
If you were a self-seeking person seeking riches why in the world would you choose heavily persecuted Christianity to exploit during that time? It just doesn't make sense to me.

I just would not look the part, even in tweeds.

Didnt say Paul was after riches. As for what he did find, many find something
quite different than they'd intended. Prisons and graves are full of such.

First of all for any kind of evolution to be true there has to be a reason why it started. or we would have all kinds of universe all over the place in different stages of life second everything seems to be going on the same way for thousands of years now. Seems to me we would have seen some of this changing happening some where especially with all the different things there are and in thousands of years nothing has changed.

jpbg33 wrote:First of all for any kind of evolution to be true there has to be a reason why it started. or we would have all kinds of universe all over the place in different stages of life second everything seems to be going on the same way for thousands of years now. Seems to me we would have seen some of this changing happening some where especially with all the different things there are and in thousands of years nothing has changed.

Maybe God started it?
Why would there be all kinds of universes and how do you know there isnt?
Things change all the time.

If being a God is not proof of evolution but that the bible is real. What is the difference in a horse five thousand years ago then a horse to day. The way horse are being bred doesn't count that is not by natural process.