or could be put this way, science is only as good as those who actually comprehend that what they are doing is absolutely correct. and so far, no scientist can make that claim!!

Hopefully science will NEVER be ABSOLUTELY correct.
If that time ever comes, it will be the end of the search for reality and the conditions of reality.
We are a long, long, long way from that day tho.
In the quest for understanding of everything, everywhere, everywhen, we are still taking baby steps and just ventured into the unknown on our own.
There will be mistakes. That's what science is all about. Figuring out what is a mistake and searching for a better answer.

Anyone that claims they have it all figured out is delusional or a fool.
As long as "what if" still exists as a question, science matters.

For discussion purposes...
Why do you agree?

because science is actually nowhere close to the facts to begin with. yes, we understand the laws of physics for mathematical purposes, but we do not understand the proper use of red lines to calculate the rate of expansions. we have 2 red lines within our own galaxy that if we STOPPED IGNORING would reduce the 14.3 billion years down to just a couple of billion years. but then, the myths associated with the 14.3 billion year expansion would have to be tossed from our knowledge.

in all seriousness, science has gotten lazy. the pioneers literally did all of the work and today's associates are just tinkering along the same lines. yes, we have tried to explain star births, nova, supernova. but due to high powered telescopes, we are just being lazy and hoping for that next big thing to make its appearance.

DNA has really put too much speculation on biology since it is absolutely impossible DNA happened by random accident. your DNS has enough info to travel back and forth to Pluto 10 times. no possible way that was by evolution or random accident. DNA has broken the backs of geneticists and biology. the more they discover about DNA, the more evolution looks like a fraud.

so in reality, most of science is back to square one including the BBT and singularity.

and its mostly made up of people who autistic and psychologically damaged due to Asperger's. they are just nerds who aren't very bright at all.

Atheism is the absence of belief, we don't need to prove the "inexistence" of something that we don't believe in. It's the other way around, the proof should be brought up by those who claim it exists.

many times I have been instructed by atheists [concerning their beliefs/disbeliefs] are so based upon by the discoveries of science.


which leads me to several thoughts:


the PEW RESEARCH POLL indicates more scientists now believe in God than those who do not.

to break it down specifically, biologists working with bacteria and DNA claim their research proves God more than Darwin's evolution.

biologists even conclude singularity was manipulated and has never in its natural form divided and split even observing billions of test samples under the microscope for over 150+ years.



this does not include the recent flip flop due to the COBE TELESCOPE expedition proving the BANG took place [and then] the laws of physics, singularity, energy came into existence AFTER THE BANG.

even one new scientific idealism is the BANG never took place at all.




if more scientists are discovering God through their research than evolution, why are the atheists not willing to accept this when they base their idealisms off of science?

if science has proven more aspects of there being a God, why are atheists not accepting this?

clearly atheist are not as intelligent as science as a whole.

so, why are atheist not accepting what today's scientists are discovering and claiming?

Science is neither belief or non-belief.
Science is proof which is verified by testing and observing the results of that testing.
Theory is belief or non-belief in a hypothesis.
Once that hypothesis is proven correct or incorrect by testing and observing the results it becomes science.

The only reason for science is to explain reality.

It matters not which beliefs or non-beliefs a scientist may entertain.
Anything that can't be tested cannot be science, only theory.
For God to be science would require God being present so testing could be done by multiple observers under multiple conditions.
Only if all testing yields the same results can God then become science.

Wherever possible there must be independent confirmation of the “facts.”
This means that not only must there be tests done by those that believe in God but also tests done by those that do not.

Substantive debate on the evidence by knowledgeable proponents of all points of view.
Not only view points of Biblical scholars but viewpoints of other non-religious scholars having "on target" non-emotional discussions.

If there’s something to be explained, think of all the different ways in which it could be explained. Then think of tests by which you might systematically disprove each of the alternatives.
One explanation is not enough. Equal consideration should be given to all explanations. Reasonable accuracy should be used to disprove all explanations leaving the best as the conclusion.

See if you can find reasons for rejecting it. If you don’t, others will.
You should be most focused on proving why your own ideas can be rejected.
It not only helps to solidify your views but helps locate weaknesses in your theories.

What is vague and qualitative is open to many explanations.
Be precise and accurate in your calculations.

If there’s a chain of argument, every link in the chain must work (including the premise) — not just most of them.
If its only part right or only right sometimes.

Occam’s Razor
when faced with two hypotheses that explain the data equally well to choose the simpler. Always ask whether the hypothesis can be, at least in principle, falsified…. You must be able to check assertions out. Inveterate skeptics must be given the chance to follow your reasoning, to duplicate your experiments and see if they get the same result.

Science is reality
It requires no belief to be.
If belief is required
It is not science.

i am not talking about science being a belief. I am talking about those within science who are open minded and ended up believing their research proves the existence of God. then belief is, where reasoning ends with science and faith extends beyond to understand the hand of God.

but according to PEW RESEARCH, scientists and lab rats within biology believe they see the hand of God by the miracle of bacteria after 60 generations still being bacteria and nothing more, and by DNA and understanding the complexities can not be from randomness or by accident. when the information in every DNA strand can take you from earth to Pluto and back 9 times, it's hard to believe this is/was by accident which evolution would suggest.

PRC is one view and a view that is biased towards social issues, public opinion, and demographic trends. It looks for facts of how public opinion and trends affect society. What it doesn't do is conduct science validation for the sake of accuracy of the science but how people in society react to it.

Life on Earth is around 4 billion years old. There are many more than 60 generations of mutations. Bacteria is one of the most prolific forms of life on this planet. Observation of 60 generations is not long enough to determine if natural mutation occurs. There is also the possibility that within those 60 generations, natural mutation is occurring but our technology can't detect those changes because they are so insignificant.
What is significant is that we can change the environment and cause unnatural mutation within 60 generations. The fact that a mutation can be caused proves that mutation can occur.


First significance is the word Nitrogen.

This is significant because most of the life on this planet exists in the atmosphere.
There are non-atmosphere dwelling lifeforms on this planet as well.
We call these lifeforms anaerobic.
Of DNA, we share most of our sequence with other nitrogen based life.
DNA sequences is different but only certain parts are unique to us.
While the information in DNA is immense and complex, it is this complexity that increases the likelihood of mutations occurring.
Additionally, mapping the human genome or any genome is relatively new science. It is baseline mapping, not specific mapping.
There hasn't been time to map exact sequencing of multiple generations of a single human. Plus, mapping one human's generational mutations would only give information on that specific human and its subsequent generations.
To have significance, each type of human pair would need to be mapped and every pair of every generation for each type would have to be mapped. Then each test subject would have to be monitored in a baseline environment with exactly the same conditions.
Which means, each test subject would need to be an example of race (Caucasian, Oriental, etc...). Their test mate would also need to be considered (Caucasian-Caucasian, Oriental-Oriental, Caucasian-Oriental, Etc...) Each mating would need to be timed to age (maturity) of both genetic donors. Each zygote would need to be paired with the same type zygote, generation by generation.
Environmental factors would need to be exactly the same for the pristine subjects and their offspring. This means the same temperature, same stress, same foods, sleep patterns and so on.

The importance of determining changes requires that the testing controls everything except that which is being tested. Failure of conclusion in most experiments is usually due to failure to maintain control factors in testing.

In determining if mutations occur naturally the test process must be maintained over multiple generations with no deviation, otherwise the data collected has no significance. 60 generations could be significant as long as the control factors are precisely maintained for each generation.
It also matters how specific the data is chosen. In other words, if they are looking at specific data from the pristine subject, are they looking for exactly the same data from each resultant generation?
Did they choose the correct data to determine the validity of their hypothesis?

Natural mutation occurs over time due to changes in environmental conditions.
In the testing for mutations, the control of environment will stifle mutation. This will yield results of minimal or no mutation.
In this case, the control measures affect the results.

If an organism has no need to change, it will not mutate.
If an organism has no need to evolve, it will remain the same.

I was raised Christian. I was led to believe the God is standing on a cloud holding a big stick with rays of light shining through. As I got older I could not live up to those expectations instilled in me as a child only because I'm a human and most of my life was wrong on self will..
Of course I was going two fall short of those expectations. Which in turn made me feel less capable of living up to those expectations and US started a vicious cycle.

I've come to believe that my God Lives Within Me it's my conscience, my moral compass. I know immediately when I do wrong or I'm about to do wrong ie (self-will). I believe every human has this instinct / moral compass. Myself will tells me it's okay to eat that apple. My God's will says I shouldn't I could still be happy without eating that apple.. on any given day I'll bite that apple then I suffer the shame guilt and remorse from eating it then there are no more apples I blocked myself off from the tree that produces apples..
So when apple a day keeps much more then the doctor away..

I just wear a t shirt that says.. I'm catholic

People must realize that a logical mindset cannot understand spiritual words of the Bible. so what they do is call it out of date, sentient, not for our era. if you want to k ow and understand the Bible ask the teacher the Holy ghost before you begin to read to teach you what your about to read and let you understand spiritually how to apply the passage or text to your everyday life. your personal testimony is what you k ow what God did to you. nobody can say no it did not happen. books on apologetics would be very helpful to your journey here on earth. God bless you.

As a matter of fact, I can prove their is no god. I can prove there are no fairies, and I can prove there is no santa.

It's harder for me to prove that I don't owe taxes.

I have proof that I owe taxes.

Now, about the burden of the proof. The one who claims santa, faires, taxes have the burden of the proof.

Hope that helps

nah son...

A scientific theory is an explanation for why things work or how things happen. Scientists develop theories based on their observations of the world around them. Theories are based on ideas that can be tested.

There is a difference between theory and imagination.
A theory involves scientific observations and conclusions thru testing and repetition.

I used to wonder why a scientist's theory get more consideration than a science fiction writer's imagination.
The reason is because of the conclusions based on testing, observation and common sense.

But, on a science based website I read that belief in God has validity because that belief causes real world change to occur. We have examples of real world change occurring from a belief in God all thru our history books. Its not a matter of proof of God but more of a proof of belief in God. As such, any belief, if strong enough and common enough causes real world change.

The thing about belief in God that trumps everything is the fact that science does not actually know everything about everything everywhere everywhen.

When given an unknown, only belief can explain that which is not known.
It doesn't matter what is believed. God, random chance or unknown action. We just don't know for sure.

My mind can figure out the process that created the Universe from the first molecule but something introduced a change of state that started everything. What that something was, nobody know but I choose to believe it was God. If I am wrong, science should be able to prove me wrong but so far, in all of human understanding, Nothing can explain it.
So, it could be anything, from God to a simple act of collision of atoms.
Till we understand, belief is all we have...

I will tell one argument in favour of that the God exists. Historical argument. There were projects to construct paradise on the Earth: the western and Russian (Soviet) project. Both have failed. The God promises Paradise in that world and does not allow to construct it here. That fact, that people is not able to construct the ideal world on this planet at all to force of their reason and will - the most essential proof of a reality of the God.

Is impossible without faith, nowadays everyone wants physical proof so no chance

It's true you don't have to proof your believe to anyone because your believe is your believe and that's what you practice, it's all that matters to you after all

To prove your own beliefs... it takes time, experience and study. You can provide information to others, but what they do with it depends on them.

Science has reverse-engineered what must have generally happened over billions of years based on that which exists now.

I believe proof God exists -and created the universe -can be found in just the same way.

In order to prove that man created something, for example, we reference the characteristics of that thing -as well as whether it could have been produced by "nature" in the absence of man.

If we are to determine whether God created the universe or not, we would need to reference the "nature" which existed before what we call nature. More correctly, we would reference the most simple states possible in order to determine what necessarily took place between then and now. We could do so by logic, math (the languages of the basic nature of reality) and modelling. We would also reference the characteristics of the universe.

That which is created by man -and which is also different than that which can be produced by present nature -has various levels of extreme purposeful complexity (the basic level being impossibility in the absence of man). It is of an unusual arrangement which has a purpose which is indicative of the nature of its creator. A car, for example, would indicate a creator wanted a being of about human height to move/travel faster than otherwise possible. The intended driver would have some means of operating the controls -so on, so forth.

If we consider the entire universe -especially in reference to the most simple imaginable states -it is indicative of what generally allowed for it -and specifically caused it.