New Scientific Evidence for the Existence of God

[Youwerecreated]

How far in do the teeth have to be for it to be meat eaters teeth?

He ate meat,but was he this predator imagination says he was.

How far in do the teeth have to be for it to be the imagined meat eaters teeth?

Well i have read they were deeply rooted i am not certain because i have done no dental exams on a t-rex. Some people say their teeth are two thirds in the jaw bone but look at their teeth and they have little arms. I can't see those theeth grabbing a big dinosaur and ripping it apart because the teeth couldn't support that pressure and having short front arms i just don't buy them being a predator.

Look.

Tyrannosaurus: Hyena of the Cretaceous | Dinosaur Tracking

So are the dinosaurs as old as evolutionist say ?

T. Rex Soft Tissue Found Preserved


Hillary Mayell
for National Geographic News


March 24, 2005

T. Rex Soft Tissue Found Preserved

Hmm ?????????

Schweitzer's Dangerous Discovery (How did Dinosaur soft tissue survive millions of years?)
Discover ^ | 10/3/2009

Posted on Saturday, October 03, 2009 729 PM by SeekAndFind

Two years ago, Schweitzer gazed through a microscope in her laboratory at North Carolina State University and saw lifelike tissue that had no business inhabiting a fossilized dinosaur skeleton: fibrous matrix, stretchy like a wet scab on human skin; what appeared to be supple bone cells, their three-dimensional shapes intact; and translucent blood vessels that looked as if they could have come straight from an ostrich at the zoo.

By all the rules of paleontology, such traces of life should have long since drained from the bones. It's a matter of faith among scientists that soft tissue can survive at most for a few tens of thousands of years, not the 65 million since T. rex walked what's now the Hell Creek Formation in Montana. But Schweitzer tends to ignore such dogma. She just looks and wonders, pokes and prods, following her scientific curiosity. That has allowed her to see things other paleontologists have missed—and potentially to shatter fundamental assumptions about how much we can learn from the past. If biological tissue can last through the fossilization process, it could open a window through time, showing not just how extinct animals evolved but how they lived each day. "Fossils have richer stories to tell—about the lub-dub of dinosaur life—than we have been willing to listen to," says Robert T. Bakker, curator of paleontology at the Houston Museum of Natural Science. "This is one spectacular proof of that."

At the same time, the contents of those T. rex bones have also electrified some creationists, who interpret Schweitzer's findings as evidence that Earth is not nearly as old as scientists claim. "I invite the reader to step back and contemplate the obvious," wrote Carl Wieland on the Answers in Genesis Web site last year. "This discovery gives immensely powerful support to the proposition that dinosaur fossils are not millions of years old at all, but were mostly fossilized under catastrophic conditions a few thousand years ago at most."

Rhetoric like this has put Schweitzer at the center of a raging cultural controversy, because she is not just a pioneering paleontologist but also an evangelical Christian. That fact alone has prompted some prominent paleontologists to be even more skeptical about her scientific research. Some creationists have questioned her work from the other direction, pressing her to refute Darwinian evolution. But in her religious life, Schweitzer is no more of an ideologue than she is in her scientific career. In both realms, she operates with a simple but powerful consistency: The best way to understand the glory of the world is to open your eyes and take an honest look at what is out there.

Funny, rhetoric ? it's not rhetoric it's obvious because soft tissue can't last as long as evolutionist the dinosaurs went extinct.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Honestly, what the hell are you going on about now?

2002 (your link) is older than 2005 (my link).



If you want, I will find something newer, but that is the number - 98%. Your information is outdated.

Well you know the chimps DNA has never been mapped so how would they know there is only a 2% difference ?

Scientists Complete Genetic Map of the Chimpanzee
By Rick Weiss
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, September 1, 2005

Scientists said yesterday that they have determined the precise order of the 3 billion bits of genetic code that carry the instructions for making a chimpanzee, humankind's closest cousin.

The fresh unraveling of chimpanzee DNA allows an unprecedented gene-to-gene comparison with the human genome, mapped in 2001, and makes plain the evolutionary processes through which chimps and humans arose from a common ancestor about 6 million years ago.

As predicted by preliminary studies, the human and chimpanzee genetic codes are essentially 99 percent identical, a testament to how fundamentally similar the two species remain. At the same time, it is powerful evidence that seemingly modest changes in molecular code can lead to very different stations in the web of life.
Scientists Complete Genetic Map of the Chimpanzee

I stand corrected, i didn't know they mapped a chimps DNA.

So which one do we believe one link say's 1% and the other say's 2% difference. That is still a lot of beneficial mutations needed to make a chimp a human. And really i can only think of a few beneficial mutations and these are suspect at best.

You need a net gain of beneficial information plus, to make that chimp a human.

I still don't buy it because of the looks,and the abilities we humans have over a chimp.

Oh wait the nearest ancestor to the chimp could be otherorganisms before humans.

List of organisms by chromosome count - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Youwerecreated]

Just because you don't understand why falsifiability is necessary for a theory to be scientific, does not mean much of anything. Links have been given to you, and your own link says it, falsifiability is a necessary condition for a theory to be scientific. It has been explained to you, over and over and over and over and over again.

I am a goddam broken record here.

That is a fact.

Period.



And, with respect to macro-evolution - you, yourself, showed several examples where it is falsified, so...duh...it is falsifiable.



You are being willfully obtuse at this point.

The other day i showed you the evidence of design but you couldn't bring yourself to admit it,so you claimed it was evidence of macro-evolution. Really i got a good laugh out of it.
....

Anybody, even a child, can show another evidence of ID because ID is NOT FALSIFIABLE. All anyone has to say is "God did it".

.... Show me evidence that is convincing.

Duh ,show me your evidence ?

....

No evidence WOULD be convincing to you when you have your own theory that is ALWAYS right - "God did it".

....

Do i need to quote real scientists to show you macro-evolution has never been documented ?first you need to learn your own terms, don't be an Ideologue.

Are you trying to imply something?

If you are, that's all you have left; you're desperate.

Dream on girl it's not hard to poke holes in your theory because it's only supported by the imagination.

You have a real problem with God doing things don't you ?

Similarity does not prove ancestry or macro-evolution.

If you look at the chromosome count the nearest ancestor to a chimp could be a potato or beaver. It's hilarious.

 

[Si modo]

The other day i showed you the evidence of design but you couldn't bring yourself to admit it,so you claimed it was evidence of macro-evolution. Really i got a good laugh out of it.
....

Anybody, even a child, can show another evidence of ID because ID is NOT FALSIFIABLE. All anyone has to say is "God did it".

No evidence WOULD be convincing to you when you have your own theory that is ALWAYS right - "God did it".

....

Do i need to quote real scientists to show you macro-evolution has never been documented ?first you need to learn your own terms, don't be an Ideologue.

Are you trying to imply something?

If you are, that's all you have left; you're desperate.

Dream on girl it's not hard to poke holes in your theory because it's only supported by the imagination.

What the hell are you going on about, now?

You are speaking from such ignorance about the most basic logic of science.


And, there is a reason my gender is not obvious. You just showed all of us your sexism.

Thanks.





You are going on about nothing here. You are totally ignorant about the logic of science - the basics. You have grasped nothing at all.

You are either brain damaged, or willfully obtuse.

But, we all should thank you for giving us a glaring example of how our public school system fails so miserably in educating anyone in even the basics of science. You should sue every school you attended for non-performance.

Go to church, leave the lab work to those who know what they are doing.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Anybody, even a child, can show another evidence of ID because ID is NOT FALSIFIABLE. All anyone has to say is "God did it".

No evidence WOULD be convincing to you when you have your own theory that is ALWAYS right - "God did it".

Are you trying to imply something?

If you are, that's all you have left; you're desperate.

Dream on girl it's not hard to poke holes in your theory because it's only supported by the imagination.

What the hell are you going on about, now?

You are speaking from such ignorance about the most basic logic of science.


And, there is a reason my gender is not obvious. You just showed all of us your sexism.

Thanks.





You are going on about nothing here. You are totally ignorant about the logic of science - the basics. You have grasped nothing at all.

You are either brain damaged, or willfully obtuse.

But, we all should thank you for giving us a glaring example of how our public school system fails so miserably in educating anyone in even the basics of science. You should sue every school you attended for non-performance.

Go to church, leave the lab work to those who know what they are doing.

Really ?

Percentage of genetic similarity between humans and animals





It is very difficult to find reliable data comparing the human genome to animal genome. The principal reason is that few animals have had their full genome sequenced. Even those that have cannot be easily compared in terms of percentages because the genomic length and chromosomal division can vary greatly from one species to another.

Scouring the Web, here is what I have found so far.

- Genome-wide variation from one human being to another can be up to 0.5% (99.5% similarity)

- Chimpanzees are 96% to 98% similar to humans, depending on how it is calculated. (source)

- Cats have 90% of homologous genes with humans, 82% with dogs, 80% with cows, 79% with chimpanzees, 69% with rats and 67% with mice. (source)

- Cows (Bos taurus) are 80% genetically similar to humans (source)

- 75% of mouse genes have equivalents in humans (source), 90% of the mouse genome could be lined up with a region on the human genome (source) 99% of mouse genes turn out to have analogues in humans (source)

- The fruit fly (Drosophila) shares about 60% of its DNA with humans (source).

- About 60% of chicken genes correspond to a similar human gene. (source)


The number of genes across a few tested species can be compared on HomoloGene.

Go to the site to see sources.

Percentage of genetic similarity between humans and animals

Another interesting article.

Many uncertainties surround the recently sequenced chimpanzee genome

In 2005, scientists announced that the entire chimpanzee genome had been successfully sequenced and it had confirmed evolutionary predictions (of course!). However, there are critical flaws to this declaration.8

First, the chimpanzee genome was not built from scratch. In a likely bid to save money and time, it was assembled using the human genome as a scaffold. This also reveals the evolutionary presuppositions of the scientists who started the genome project with the critical assumption that humans and chimps are close evolutionary cousins and would tend to bias the results towards greater similarity.

Second, the chimp genome is about 12% larger than the human genome. At the risk of sounding overly simplistic, this would seem to indicate at most an 88% DNA similarity from the outset. How was this 12% difference taken into account in the overall percentage similarity, or was it ignored?

Third, chimpanzees possess many genes not present in the human genome. They also lack many genes that are present in the human genome. How were these differences included, or were they?

Fourth, by evolutionary reckoning there were millions of ‘rearrangements’ in the chimp genome. How did scientists calculate this dissimilarity?

Finally, there are many unknown regions in the chimpanzee genome. Much of the neglected non-protein-coding regions still need to be carefully studied, since geneticists continue to discover more and more critical functions in so-called ‘junk DNA’. Roles for this DNA are rapidly being discovered. Much of this is now known not to be junk at all, but is involved in such things as orchestrating embryo development.9

These are exciting questions for creationist geneticists to investigate without the constraints of the stifling evolutionary paradigm. It is quite possible that improved technology and further research into these critical areas of the chimpanzee genome will reveal even more substantial differences.



DNA similarity may be grossly overrated

Last year, scientists discovered that bats and horses shared a higher degree of DNA similarity than cows and horses—see Saddle up the horse, it’s off to the bat cave. You could hardly find two more distinct placental mammals than bats and horses, yet in contrast to evolutionary predictions based on comparing anatomy, they shared a greater genetic similarity than did horses and cows. This may have major implications for the chimpanzee-human DNA similarity as well. Despite possessing some common anatomy and a high percentage of DNA, chimpanzees are radically different from human beings in a significant number of ways. They are also rivaled and even surpassed by numerous other animals in human-like attributes such as intelligence, linguistics, emotional and social capacity, and behavioral compatibility with mankind—see Primates spearing primates.

Competition from other animals








chimpanzees have been the recipients of countless hours of intense human training and conditioning, yet they remain … disappointing





Gibbons are considered to be farther removed from humans on the evolutionary tree, yet they are more human-like in their bipedal gait than any other ape.10 This is surprising, since compared to chimps, their skeletal anatomy is even more different from humans. Elephants ‘bury’ their dead with vegetation and pay special attention to the bones and bodies of other long dead elephants—see Jumbo minds. Chimpanzees don’t bury their dead, and they leave once the corpse begins to rot. One elephant has even managed to speak eight human words in a South Korean zoo, and several Thai elephants have been taught to paint in full view of zoo enthusiasts. And elephants have accomplished these feats with a relative brain size that is about one-quarter that of chimpanzees. A couple of parrots have developed a more advanced, human-like linguistic capacity compared to the sign language abilities taught to chimpanzees. New Caledonian crows have proven to be superior tool designers to chimpanzees when hunting for food. Woodpecker finches snap off small pieces of cacti to spear insects, just like chimps that bite off the ends of sticks to make spear-like objects in order to kill bushbabies. In some experiments, pigs have even tested as more intelligent than many chimpanzees, and they can even be trained to herd sheep.11

Despite chimpanzees sharing significant genetic similarity with humans, we rely on a whole host of other animals to perform vital tasks such as searching for mines and bombs, transporting large quantities of cargo and supplies, and aiding the disabled. In addition, chimpanzees have been the recipients of countless hours of intense human training and conditioning, yet they remain quite disappointing in their human-like capacities. All of this contrasts strongly with the claimed high degree of DNA similarity and superficial anatomical similarity.


Decoding the dogma of DNA similarity

 

[Si modo]

You're just cringeworthy at this point.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Anybody, even a child, can show another evidence of ID because ID is NOT FALSIFIABLE. All anyone has to say is "God did it".

No evidence WOULD be convincing to you when you have your own theory that is ALWAYS right - "God did it".

Are you trying to imply something?

If you are, that's all you have left; you're desperate.

Dream on girl it's not hard to poke holes in your theory because it's only supported by the imagination.

What the hell are you going on about, now?

You are speaking from such ignorance about the most basic logic of science.


And, there is a reason my gender is not obvious. You just showed all of us your sexism.

Thanks.





You are going on about nothing here. You are totally ignorant about the logic of science - the basics. You have grasped nothing at all.

You are either brain damaged, or willfully obtuse.

But, we all should thank you for giving us a glaring example of how our public school system fails so miserably in educating anyone in even the basics of science. You should sue every school you attended for non-performance.

Go to church, leave the lab work to those who know what they are doing.

I am retired due to a stroke so i am no longer in the way.

University of Arizona you think is failing school in the sciences ? ok think what you like

 

[Youwerecreated]

You're just cringeworthy at this point.

DITTO,you're an Ideologue.

 

[Si modo]

You're just cringeworthy at this point.

DITTO,you're an Ideologue.

To a hack, I'm sure it appears that way.

 

[Youwerecreated]

You're just cringeworthy at this point.

DITTO,you're an Ideologue.

To a hack, I'm sure it appears that way.

Not a hack,just an honest person that calls it the way he see's it.

 

[Skull Pilot]

How far in do the teeth have to be for it to be meat eaters teeth?

He ate meat,but was he this predator imagination says he was.

How far in do the teeth have to be for it to be the imagined meat eaters teeth?

You're ignoring the part where the religious wacko believes that man actually hunted dinosaurs.

 

[JScott]

He ate meat,but was he this predator imagination says he was.

How far in do the teeth have to be for it to be the imagined meat eaters teeth?

Well i have read they were deeply rooted i am not certain because i have done no dental exams on a t-rex. Some people say their teeth are two thirds in the jaw bone but look at their teeth and they have little arms. I can't see those theeth grabbing a big dinosaur and ripping it apart because the teeth couldn't support that pressure and having short front arms i just don't buy them being a predator.

Look.

Tyrannosaurus: Hyena of the Cretaceous | Dinosaur Tracking

So are the dinosaurs as old as evolutionist say ?

T. Rex Soft Tissue Found Preserved


Hillary Mayell
for National Geographic News


March 24, 2005

T. Rex Soft Tissue Found Preserved

Hmm ?????????

Schweitzer's Dangerous Discovery (How did Dinosaur soft tissue survive millions of years?)
Discover ^ | 10/3/2009

Posted on Saturday, October 03, 2009 729 PM by SeekAndFind

Two years ago, Schweitzer gazed through a microscope in her laboratory at North Carolina State University and saw lifelike tissue that had no business inhabiting a fossilized dinosaur skeleton: fibrous matrix, stretchy like a wet scab on human skin; what appeared to be supple bone cells, their three-dimensional shapes intact; and translucent blood vessels that looked as if they could have come straight from an ostrich at the zoo.

By all the rules of paleontology, such traces of life should have long since drained from the bones. It's a matter of faith among scientists that soft tissue can survive at most for a few tens of thousands of years, not the 65 million since T. rex walked what's now the Hell Creek Formation in Montana. But Schweitzer tends to ignore such dogma. She just looks and wonders, pokes and prods, following her scientific curiosity. That has allowed her to see things other paleontologists have missed—and potentially to shatter fundamental assumptions about how much we can learn from the past. If biological tissue can last through the fossilization process, it could open a window through time, showing not just how extinct animals evolved but how they lived each day. "Fossils have richer stories to tell—about the lub-dub of dinosaur life—than we have been willing to listen to," says Robert T. Bakker, curator of paleontology at the Houston Museum of Natural Science. "This is one spectacular proof of that."

At the same time, the contents of those T. rex bones have also electrified some creationists, who interpret Schweitzer's findings as evidence that Earth is not nearly as old as scientists claim. "I invite the reader to step back and contemplate the obvious," wrote Carl Wieland on the Answers in Genesis Web site last year. "This discovery gives immensely powerful support to the proposition that dinosaur fossils are not millions of years old at all, but were mostly fossilized under catastrophic conditions a few thousand years ago at most."

Rhetoric like this has put Schweitzer at the center of a raging cultural controversy, because she is not just a pioneering paleontologist but also an evangelical Christian. That fact alone has prompted some prominent paleontologists to be even more skeptical about her scientific research. Some creationists have questioned her work from the other direction, pressing her to refute Darwinian evolution. But in her religious life, Schweitzer is no more of an ideologue than she is in her scientific career. In both realms, she operates with a simple but powerful consistency: The best way to understand the glory of the world is to open your eyes and take an honest look at what is out there.

Funny, rhetoric ? it's not rhetoric it's obvious because soft tissue can't last as long as evolutionist the dinosaurs went extinct.

 

[Dr.Drock]

That is a faulty assumption by evolutionist.

I disagree, and it certainly isn't based on "assumption" but we'll leave that be. If you think the biological classification of families of species are ridiculous, why did you take them seriously and reference them earlier in the thread when you said new species could come about within families?

Speaking your language.

I said a new breed can come from within a family but a breed can't produce a new family. That is what you agreed with.

If you don't agree then prove a breed can produce a new family.By the way do you have an answer to what humans nearest ancestor is ?

Homo sapiens came from within the hominidae family, a new species within a family.

Homo sapiens idaltu is the scientific name of what our nearest ancestor is.

 

[Youwerecreated]

How far in do the teeth have to be for it to be the imagined meat eaters teeth?

Well i have read they were deeply rooted i am not certain because i have done no dental exams on a t-rex. Some people say their teeth are two thirds in the jaw bone but look at their teeth and they have little arms. I can't see those theeth grabbing a big dinosaur and ripping it apart because the teeth couldn't support that pressure and having short front arms i just don't buy them being a predator.

Look.

Tyrannosaurus: Hyena of the Cretaceous | Dinosaur Tracking

So are the dinosaurs as old as evolutionist say ?

T. Rex Soft Tissue Found Preserved


Hillary Mayell
for National Geographic News


March 24, 2005

T. Rex Soft Tissue Found Preserved

Hmm ?????????

Schweitzer's Dangerous Discovery (How did Dinosaur soft tissue survive millions of years?)
Discover ^ | 10/3/2009

Posted on Saturday, October 03, 2009 729 PM by SeekAndFind

Two years ago, Schweitzer gazed through a microscope in her laboratory at North Carolina State University and saw lifelike tissue that had no business inhabiting a fossilized dinosaur skeleton: fibrous matrix, stretchy like a wet scab on human skin; what appeared to be supple bone cells, their three-dimensional shapes intact; and translucent blood vessels that looked as if they could have come straight from an ostrich at the zoo.

By all the rules of paleontology, such traces of life should have long since drained from the bones. It's a matter of faith among scientists that soft tissue can survive at most for a few tens of thousands of years, not the 65 million since T. rex walked what's now the Hell Creek Formation in Montana. But Schweitzer tends to ignore such dogma. She just looks and wonders, pokes and prods, following her scientific curiosity. That has allowed her to see things other paleontologists have missed—and potentially to shatter fundamental assumptions about how much we can learn from the past. If biological tissue can last through the fossilization process, it could open a window through time, showing not just how extinct animals evolved but how they lived each day. "Fossils have richer stories to tell—about the lub-dub of dinosaur life—than we have been willing to listen to," says Robert T. Bakker, curator of paleontology at the Houston Museum of Natural Science. "This is one spectacular proof of that."

At the same time, the contents of those T. rex bones have also electrified some creationists, who interpret Schweitzer's findings as evidence that Earth is not nearly as old as scientists claim. "I invite the reader to step back and contemplate the obvious," wrote Carl Wieland on the Answers in Genesis Web site last year. "This discovery gives immensely powerful support to the proposition that dinosaur fossils are not millions of years old at all, but were mostly fossilized under catastrophic conditions a few thousand years ago at most."

Rhetoric like this has put Schweitzer at the center of a raging cultural controversy, because she is not just a pioneering paleontologist but also an evangelical Christian. That fact alone has prompted some prominent paleontologists to be even more skeptical about her scientific research. Some creationists have questioned her work from the other direction, pressing her to refute Darwinian evolution. But in her religious life, Schweitzer is no more of an ideologue than she is in her scientific career. In both realms, she operates with a simple but powerful consistency: The best way to understand the glory of the world is to open your eyes and take an honest look at what is out there.

Funny, rhetoric ? it's not rhetoric it's obvious because soft tissue can't last as long as evolutionist the dinosaurs went extinct.

Yep those are some big teeth. But the size of the teeth don't prove your point.

Looking at pictures of the skulls with the teeth and trying to account for the gums they don't look like they're strongly rooted.it does not look like a t-rex could be attacking a 7 to 10 ton dinosaur without losing those teeth. Not to mention it is only theory that once they lose their teeth they just grew new ones.

Do you think if you grew much bigger teeth do you think you could subdue another human without the help of arms just those teeth ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

I disagree, and it certainly isn't based on "assumption" but we'll leave that be. If you think the biological classification of families of species are ridiculous, why did you take them seriously and reference them earlier in the thread when you said new species could come about within families?

Speaking your language.

I said a new breed can come from within a family but a breed can't produce a new family. That is what you agreed with.

If you don't agree then prove a breed can produce a new family.By the way do you have an answer to what humans nearest ancestor is ?

Homo sapiens came from within the hominidae family, a new species within a family.

Homo sapiens idaltu is the scientific name of what our nearest ancestor is.

Now prove they were from the same family and we know the complications of making a new species.

You're still making the same mistake that most evolutionists make, it is the similarity argument.

Similarity proves nothing at all.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Speaking your language.

I said a new breed can come from within a family but a breed can't produce a new family. That is what you agreed with.

If you don't agree then prove a breed can produce a new family.By the way do you have an answer to what humans nearest ancestor is ?

Homo sapiens came from within the hominidae family, a new species within a family.

Homo sapiens idaltu is the scientific name of what our nearest ancestor is.

Now prove they were from the same family and we know the complications of making a new species.

You're still making the same mistake that most evolutionists make, it is the similarity argument.

Similarity proves nothing at all.

Then why do you believe new species can be formed from another similar one? Why not just blindly assume they're randomly similar cuz God said so?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Homo sapiens came from within the hominidae family, a new species within a family.

Homo sapiens idaltu is the scientific name of what our nearest ancestor is.

Now prove they were from the same family and we know the complications of making a new species.

You're still making the same mistake that most evolutionists make, it is the similarity argument.

Similarity proves nothing at all.

Then why do you believe new species can be formed from another similar one? Why not just blindly assume they're randomly similar cuz God said so?

If the word species means a new family to you ,I disagree with how you use the word. I don't believe a family can create a new family but I do believe a family can create a new breed within the family.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Now prove they were from the same family and we know the complications of making a new species.

You're still making the same mistake that most evolutionists make, it is the similarity argument.

Similarity proves nothing at all.

Then why do you believe new species can be formed from another similar one? Why not just blindly assume they're randomly similar cuz God said so?

If the word species means a new family to you ,I disagree with how you use the word. I don't believe a family can create a new family but I do believe a family can create a new breed within the family.

I'm talking solely about new species. Why do you think a new similar species can from from a similar species but think the idea of that happening with humans is wacky? How do scientific principles skip over certain species?

 

[emilynghiem]

If there is "scientific" evidence for GOD, then that's the end of faith, hence the end of religion.

Here's a thought...if you looking for empirical evidence for GOD, you're NOT REALLY a Christian.

Because if you're seeking evidence of GOD, you don't understand the basic tenets THAT religon AT ALL.

Not so, Mr. Editec.
Science can be used to show that "faith in asking for forgiveness and healing"
actually FACILITATES healing! Of the mind and body!

So faith and science do not negate each other.
Science can help to eliminate false suppositions and false faith.
But faith in real processes, like faith in the law of gravity or other theories,
can be demonstrated by science to work over and over, even if these remain theories.

 

[emilynghiem]

Faith is a weird concept. Why would ones belief in something that can't be "proven" be greater than ones belief in something that can ? Is it the risk factor?

Dear DD: Yes, faith is a weird concept, on more than one level.
A. Another nontheist on a different forum specified there are three different levels of faith
1. Faith in things unseen
2. Faith as in good faith contracts, faith in people, faith in government
3. Faith in things to continue to happen that have happened before
like faith we'll see the sun tomorrow, faith in laws of gravity or physics will work
The religious type of faith is #1, the faith in science and in our perceptions is #3,
but faith in other people's perceptions is #2 -- if we can resolve our lack of faith in one another to be expressing something valid, we can bridge the gaps between #1 and #3
that ARE BOTH BASED on FAITH of some sort.
What I find interesting, the same "blocks to faith" in believing in something on any of these levels, are the same factors, usually something not forgiven or not trusted, which causes people to reject each other up front, instead of reconciling along points we can agree on.

B. BTW I do believe a consensus on God can be established by
1. proving how spiritual healing works scientifically and medically where this is a natural process and not anything magic or supernatural, where the key factor is forgiveness. the main barrier to be removed is the false opposition between science and faith. once you get past that, there is no need for proof at all, understanding truth is just natural existent.
2. reconciling relationships to prove consensus is possible, again by mutual forgiveness and correction to show that Truth and Justice do indeed govern all people universally
3. aligning definitions/concepts/attributes of "God" among people of different backgrounds, both theists and nontheists, religious or nonreligious, secular and political, philosophical
values and principles, so again this shows there is universal truth for all humanity (it is just expressed differently for people of different cultures/affiliations but point to the same truths)

I believe we as humanity are all in the process of assimilating all our information, perceptions and ways of expressing these various angles on truth, especially using the internet to confront and resolve longstanding differences so one all-inclusive understanding can be established, while also maintaining the diversity we see across the board. These conversations and debates occurring online are part of that record.
Thank you for contributing and I look forward to see where the learning curve converges
when we all figure out we are talking about the same universal laws and same human nature, but just using different systems of expression. They still point to the same source.

Yours truly,
Emily

P.S. Most of the process of proof/demonstration is ELIMINATING the conflicts or unforgiven issues we have that prevent us from focusing on the truth we agree on in common. It is more a process of elimination and letting go, than anything else.