Can we use "Science" to find all the answers?

Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
You ARE misunderstanding me. I am saying that the complexity of patterns and various colour schemes of bird plumage are Not explainable from evolutionary necessity.

Well then you probably don't know much about evolution.
But thats besides the point anyway as you equally attribute the laws of physics to God and presumably the process of evolution too, so there is no need for you to make the claim in the first place.

And what is 'evolutionary necessity'? Is it something you just conjured up to make an argument with?

Originally posted by dj2becker
Assuming a supernatural God exists as the Bible claims. Would we be able to use 'Science' to verify His existence?

No.

Originally posted by Palynka
Don't you find it strange that you have to resort to such fantastic scenarios like a God impersonating other God just to make a tangential point about science's inability to learn about God?

I thought you believed your God was a straight-shooter. Why shouldn't He have an effect on the world that science could see?

It is just to make a point. Some people have claimed on these forums that God does not exist since you cannot use Science to prove his existence.

Originally posted by dj2becker
It is just to make a point. Some people have claimed on these forums that God does not exist since you cannot use Science to prove his existence.

So do we all agree on the answer now?

Originally posted by dj2becker
It is just to make a point. Some people have claimed on these forums that God does not exist since you cannot use Science to prove his existence.

Some people might claim that, but if there is evidence for God (if assuming definition is a being as an intelligent creator of life and the universe, not assuming any specific religion), then you certainly can use science to prove his (assuming he is male) existence.

Considering there are infinite possibilities for God (different religions will have their own definitions, and there can be potentially infinite possible religions), it will be senseless to default to believe there is a God. The more sensible default is that there isn't one.

I am not saying there is definitely no God (assuming my first definition), just the probability is extremely small. This probability becomes much smaller if you assume a more specific definition (e.g. as defined in the bible).

Originally posted by lausey
Some people might claim that, but if there is evidence for God (if assuming definition is a being as an intelligent creator of life and the universe, not assuming any specific religion), then you certainly can use science to prove his (assuming he is male) existence.

Considering there are infinite possibilities for God (different religions will have their ...[text shortened]... y becomes much smaller if you assume a more specific definition (e.g. as defined in the bible).

The Holy Bible definition of God is the one we are talking about, so
forget the rest. So do you agree, now?

Originally posted by RJHinds
The Holy Bible definition of God is the one we are talking about, so
forget the rest. So do you agree, now?

No, because even then, if there was evidence for the "The Holy Bible definition of God", then you can use science to prove his existence.

Originally posted by lausey
No, because even then, if there was evidence for the "The Holy Bible definition of God", then you can use science to prove his existence.

If God existed what kind of scientific evidence would there be?

Originally posted by dj2becker
If God existed what kind of scientific evidence would there be?

Scientist have discovered that our solar system is very finely tuned
for the existence of life. The DNA of life itself is like a computer
program for the reproduction of other life of the same kind. How
could this be without a designer and programmer?

Originally posted by RJHinds
Scientist have discovered that our solar system is very finely tuned
for the existence of life. The DNA of life itself is like a computer
program for the reproduction of other life of the same kind. How
could this be without a designer and programmer?

You are asking evoutionist that believe no matter what the odds against
evolution were for going from non-living material into life, then changing into
the life we see day? As far as they are concern the odds really are "1" since
they say it happened the way they believe. It doesn't matter what the odds
against their faith really would be had it had to happen the way they believe,
they believe no matter how unlikely, and its science because of that, just come
up with a way to over come the issue, than people will believe. Someone will
find a way to connect the dots so it maybe possible no matter how unlikely. I
now believe you are barking at the moon if you attempt to point out how
unlikely any part of that is, because they believe no matter what!
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
You are asking evoutionist that believe no matter what the odds against
evolution were for going from non-living material into life, then changing into
the life we see day?

Still throwing that strawman around even after a long thread on the matter in which you were quite clearly shown to be presenting a strawman (and to which you agreed if I recall correctly).

You are being dishonest and deliberately misrepresenting the position of science. No scientist claims that no matter what the odds they will believe etc etc. We are simply not convinced that the odds are as much against us as you (via a strawman) suggest.

Originally posted by dj2becker
How would you use science to prove that the person praying was a true believer?

Actually, there is scientific evidence that the whole religious experience is in a small part of the brain, the religious cells, been shown by experiments with magnetic stimulation of brain.

Of course religious people would deny that to the grave.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Still throwing that strawman around even after a long thread on the matter in which you were quite clearly shown to be presenting a strawman (and to which you agreed if I recall correctly).

You are being dishonest and deliberately misrepresenting the position of science. No scientist claims that no matter what the odds they will believe etc etc. We are simply not convinced that the odds are as much against us as you (via a strawman) suggest.

How is the odds of chance producing the heavens and the earth
and all life better than if it were designed and produced on purpose?
Las Vegas casinos would take your bet anytime, but would ban us
for life.

Originally posted by KellyJay
You are asking evoutionist that believe no matter what the odds against
evolution were for going from non-living material into life, then changing into
the life we see day? As far as they are concern the odds really are "1" since
they say it happened the way they believe. It doesn't matter what the odds
against their faith really would be had it had to ...[text shortened]... t to point out how
unlikely any part of that is, because they believe no matter what!
Kelly

You keep throwing up the odds argument but you keep forgetting one thing: like in the lottery, where the odds are 200 million to one, someone still wins usually. When the prize rises to 100 million or so, many more people start betting on the lottery, and that usually produces a winner in spite of the odds. Get the gist here?

In life, you tout the odds, but you neglect the number of chemical 'experiments' going on at the same time. That would be in the quintillions or more, since there are almost uncountable number of molecules able to react to certain stimuli, like UV light or lightning, heat from a hot spring, underwater hot water vents, volcano activity, etc.
You find solace in the huge odds that other scientists calculate, but you don't rail against those odds because it suits your purpose, which is to destroy evolution and force supernatural dogma to take over again.

You maybe notice how well that turned out the last time.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Still throwing that strawman around even after a long thread on the matter in which you were quite clearly shown to be presenting a strawman (and to which you agreed if I recall correctly).

You are being dishonest and deliberately misrepresenting the position of science. No scientist claims that no matter what the odds they will believe etc etc. We are simply not convinced that the odds are as much against us as you (via a strawman) suggest.

So tell me, is there anything or better yet any combinations of things in living
systems that could not come from evolution? If you say nothing than I'm telling
you, you've just proved my point, there are no odds against anything within
living system that you think cannot be over come. What makes this even worse
for you, that forces you into the doing the very thing you cry about with
Christians and other people of faith, the only good answers to the questions
are yours, not unlike what you accuse the JW of.
Kelly