Skip to comments.Will Science Someday Rule Out the Possibility of God?
Posted on 10/01/2012 11:16:12 PM PDT by Olog-hai
click here to read article
To claim that anything comes from “nothing” implies that matter should pop in and out of existence spontaneously even now. But it does not. Creation always violates the laws of thermodynamics, so it is not possible for something to arise out of nothing.
He wants to replace one deity with another "an all powerful sense of something".
religion does not compete with true science. True science talks about the how in observable actions. Religion deals with the intangible, science the tangible.
I know that, but of course our buddies in the media want to set these neo-druids up as “scientists”.
Virtual particles do pop in and out of existence all the time.
Will God Someday Rule Out the Possibility of Science?
Those theoretical undetectable particles? Something has to be observable to be real to scientists, yes . . . ? The reality may be more edifying, I suspect.
I know nothing.
And the king spake unto Ashpenaz the master of his eunuchs, that he should bring certain of the children of Israel, and of the king's seed, and of the princes; / Children in whom was no blemish, but well favoured, and skilful in all wisdom, and cunning in knowledge, and understanding science, and such as had ability in them to stand in the kings palace, and whom they might teach the learning and the tongue of the Chaldeans.The Hebrew word translated science here is also the modern Hebrew word for science (madda מדע).
To discuss with hubby later.
All the science discussion is just to try to prove there is no God. A Christian scientist knows there is God and sees His creation that way. If you look at the whole space program, it was mainly a program to try to prove water, bacteria, or some other organic material is somewhere off Earth. Finding a bacteria on Mars is a far cry from proving there is no God, but it makes them feel they are right and don't have to answer for their sins.
True science should prove evolution is impossible for an organism to stay alive long enough to mutate in a way to digest food, see with eyes, and other bodily functions. If you just look at the digestive system and it's enzymes, you should fall down in awe of the complexity involved to change a piece of meat into energy. How many organisms had to be born and then die because they couldn't eat and live before a mutant could digest food using hundreds of amino acids and enzymes? The mathematical possibilities are ZERO! How could they live long enough to reproduce without being able to eat? The questions write themselves.
...until then it's all theory and theories that lack the logical and reasonable assumptions of a higher being being ultimately responsible for what is us and around us.
There are fundamental contradictions which remain unexplained, there are ongoing missing links, and as Einstein said, "As the diameter of a circle of light grows, so does the circumference of the darkness around it."
We don't know what we don't know yet, but those who are prideful in the knowledge we do possess think differently.
When we can come up with next week's weather forecast (a reliable one) week after week, when we can predict earthquakes with reliability, and say with certainty where and when lightning will strike, get back to me.
Otherwise, it is great fun to toss our meager intellects against the majesty of Creation in an effort to understand what God hath wrought.
What of the mathematical probability of developing DNA with sufficient instructions on how to digest material in order to prolong life and then reach the point of being able to reproduce . . . ? Enzymes themselves are programmed to catalyze but one chemical reaction, but who did the programming?I have never seen any computer program write itself spontaneously (I’m sure IBM would have loved that, but that ain’t how it works).
I always thinks it is funny when scientists use their God given ability to Reason to prove there is no God. In order for Reason to be valid it cannot be the effect of an irrational cause, it must separate and independent of nature. Otherwise it is simply the epiphenomenon of chemical reactions, electrical impulses, etc.
God is laughing His head off over all this nonsense.
> Creationist may crucify you for suggesting it.
We may vigorously disagree, but we don’t crucify anybody.
In fact, the atheist communists have probably killed more Christians than all the other persecutors combined.
It’s the Christians that are crucified in this world, literally as well as figuratively.
... as well as shot to death, burned alive, beheaded, drowned, drawn and quartered, sawn in half, tortured.
Trying to disprove the Creator is a fools errand.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.