First one has to understand that in order for the whole religion thing to work there has to be a little thing called “ Faith “ since no one can prove what was written so long ago without faith, a case for the existence of God has to have that as the primary keystone. [
But having faith in science is presumably not allowed - not that it is necessary anyway...] What does it take to prove anything? Well you generally need “Facts“. Facts are the whole basis for science unless you’re talking about “Global Warming”, Darwinism (evolutionary biology), or Space Aliens. Science will accept any possibility for life except for one that is guided. [
Except this is patently untrue - science will accept any possibility, so long as the "facts" i.e. the evidence, supports it] Now as in your case since you have stated that you need proof then by definition you must be a skeptic.
If proof of God is what you’re looking for
Liz then you have to understand “intelligent design” and how it is a counter point to the whole atheist belief system that is bolstered by Darwinism. Intelligent Design is a study of patterns in nature [
and so is evolutionary biology, although evolutionary biology uses the scientific method to test and validate itself as a bona fide scientific theory, and is not merely a way of interpreting all and every piece of information in the context of a presupposed idea involving the activity of a possibly non-existent supernatural entity], Darwin tried to prove that the changes within a species not only leads to new species but to every species and the evidence for that
claim is totally lacking [
is written in every genome in the natural world and, thanks to modern scientific methodologies, is readily accessible to the interested researcher], where as Darwinism has to do with some concept that orients it’s self around life starting [
* see the comment below that directly contradicts this] from a spontaneous emergence from a primordial soup AKA from mud to life, or another theory was that life possibly started on the backs of crystals. Maybe it was the alien seeding method…lol…
Darwin never stated how life began [<--
*yes, this one], so isn’t that what has to be looked at first? [
When it comes to explaining how new species come from older ones, no. Evolutionary biology has come to the conclusion that new species must have come from older ones, in order to explain the otherwise inexplicable similarities between all lifeforms. It is a logical extension of this - but not a prerequisite for understanding the process of evolution itself - that all life arose from a common ancestor, whatever that may have been] When Darwin talked about the common cell back in 1859 he considered it to be quite a simple design, when in fact it is as vast as the galaxy [
It's all relative - single cells are relatively simple yet are still highly complex. The basic processes of cell division and replication are not very complex at all - and have been well known for decades.]. For the world’s first single cell organism to have taken place you had to have a perfectly aligned string of 250 proteins all in the correct order for life to function, approximately one in one trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion for life to have taken place on it's own [
but only if all of the parts arrived on the scene simultaneously and there was no such thing as cumulative selection. There is such a thing as cumulative selection.]. For the understanding of the cell to be dealt with, it has to be looked at in a scientific manor just like Darwinism [
true], but because of the unimaginable complexity of it, the Darwinist have to destroy the intelligent design aspect of it by weaving it into creationism, thusly demonizing it as taboo [
ID fails on it's own merit - or lack of it; Evolutionary biology stands as a bona fide scientific theory that is neither seriously challenged or affected by any and all other competing ideas (testable or not), including ID/creationism] and painting it with the complexity of a randomness luck of the draw. The founders of early modern science Isaac Newton, Robert Boyle, Johannes Kepler, Galileo Galilei most of these scientist not only believed in God but their belief actually made it easier to do science. [
So what does this say about your earlier statement that 'Science' has no interest in considering the possibility of divine intervention... to use your own phraseology, it's 'testicular'. Science always has and probably always will attempt to address the possibility that God not only exists, but that His actions are demonstrable and, most importantly, testable. Modern science stands on the shoulders of these great giants, but it doesn't mean that we must accept that they were always rights about everything. Indeed, even Darwin believed in God for a bit. Evolution theory stands on it's own merit - and is only as strong as the evidence that supports it. The idea that life is/was designed or being controlled by an unseen divine hand is an idea that fails on it's own merit - deprived of any supporting evidence, and most certainly not as a result of a lack of research.]
A belief in Darwinism means that we live, we die, then were gone with no kind of deep meaning in life [
Nonsense]. Case in point Hitler’s Mein Kampf [
again with the Nazi references - seriously man, this gets old quick], he used
Darwinistic Eugenics to devalue life and we know what that meant, a decrease in the surplus population [
Some people do indeed use science to do bad things - but that doesn't make the science bad. Einstein is not to blame for Hiroshima. Newton is not to blame for the fact that the Twin Towers fell to the ground. And Toyota's engineers are not to blame that the Taliban seem to love their Land Cruisers]. At some point you have to be a realist in this whole God thing, either you think your existence is something that is greater than a rock and has a chance that your spirit will go on after your mortality is realized or the human experience is no diffeent than a
retarded fish frog.
Retarded fish frog pt 2
My research [
?!?!] was taken from the movie
Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, If anyone has the testicular fortitude to look at the greatest case for intelligent design then check it out, it will rock your Atheistic sensibilities.
[
No thanks, I'll stick to the scientific literature.]
Intelligent Design is like Holy Water to a Vampire [
and like reading other people's Facebook updates about Farmville to a scientist - pointless and devoid of all meaning.]
