Can Science Reveal God?

[mickiel]

Originally Posted by Topology

irreducible complexity is not a scientific fact.

The Austrailian termite is not a scientific fact! It is a living example of irreducible complexity.

Protiens are another living example of irreducible complexity.

The female angler fish is another living example of irreducible complexity.

The Archer fish, and the Anableps are yet two more living examples of irredicible complexity.

If your here to make sure no misinformation is being offered, then I think what you have just offered needs to be reconsidered by yourself.

I guess you can tell yourself anything.

Science has proven to me just how superstitious and controlling many religions are and also that if there is a God, that "IT" is nothing like any one religion preaches about here.
.................................................. ..................................

Whilst many people ponder on the thought...what if there was life other than our own...Imagine if there is not?.............we can still be a fluke and there be no "intelligent design" ROLLS EYES

Enjoy your suffering while it lasts ... there may be nothing afterwards

Personally I find it very disappointing that we don't do more to explore more than we are ... I find that the religious groups controlling the economy of those at the forefront, are holding back such exploration in the fear that Science proves just how fallible its doctrine really is.

Originally Posted by mickiel

The Austrailian termite is not a scientific fact! It is a living example of irreducible complexity.

Protiens are another living example of irreducible complexity.

The female angler fish is another living example of irreducible complexity.

The Archer fish, and the Anableps are yet two more living examples of irredicible complexity.

If your here to make sure no misinformation is being offered, then I think what you have just offered needs to be reconsidered by yourself.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity

Follow the link to the criticism from scientists, basically everybody that does not have an agenda for promoting intelligent design states that irreducible complexity has not been proven and is bunk pseudoscience.

[mickiel]

Originally Posted by Search

I guess you can tell yourself anything.

Science has proven to me just how superstitious and controlling many religions are and also that if there is a God, that "IT" is nothing like any one religion preaches about here.
.................................................. ..................................

I have to say, I agree with you.

[mickiel]

Originally Posted by Topology

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity

Follow the link to the criticism from scientists, basically everybody that does not have an agenda for promoting intelligent design states that irreducible complexity has not been proven and is bunk pseudoscience.

An interesting read, I saved it. But I disagree that " basically Everybody" without an agenda disagrees with irreducible complexity, thats way to wide of a statement.

[psychoslice]

Originally Posted by Search

I guess you can tell yourself anything.

Science has proven to me just how superstitious and controlling many religions are and also that if there is a God, that "IT" is nothing like any one religion preaches about here.
.................................................. ..................................

Whilst many people ponder on the thought...what if there was life other than our own...Imagine if there is not?.............we can still be a fluke and there be no "intelligent design" ROLLS EYES

Enjoy your suffering while it lasts ... there may be nothing afterwards

I like very muck.

[mickiel]

Originally Posted by psychoslice

I like very muck.

I like what he said myself; I don't think God is anything like religion is describing; I think he is FAR more! Far more Loving than we think and know, far more forgiving; much more " Kind and Gentle", far more Joyful and Happy; And way, way more Super and Intelligent- WAY more of that!

And thats just one reason why I believe we all are destined to be with him; because this world is " Not enough" to fit this kind of egnigmatic beings plans; there must be more to life than death.

[mickiel]

Originally Posted by Topology

That doesn't mean that it can't be done. It simply means that we don't know yet how. Ignorance of how to do something is not proof that it is impossible. If you look at how science is advancing in this realm, our knowledge expands daily.

I don't have an answer on how life formed. I'm not here to deny you God. If you see the sheer complexity of everything going on and say "My God there must be a God", that's your personal conclusion. I'm here to make sure that there is no spurious misinformation being spread. The question of God's existence is truly independent of evolution. There is nothing so far in our discoveries that says life emerging was absolutely impossible and required a God. Everything we discover is suggesting that evolution of species did occur, regardless of what the first cause was.

I read your link and I think there is fair disagreement on the views I expressed, I don't deny that. Neither do I know the amount of scientist who agree with irreducible complexity, verses those who don't. But I disagree with the notion of Gods existence being independant of evolution; in my view, its either one or the other. I am aware of those who believe in both, who have made room for both; I simply see no such room. I think one cancels out the other. Those specific things which do obviously evolve, such as the " Butterfly", from larve to pupi, are simply designed to do so in that pattern, and cannot break away from that to another.

Originally Posted by mickiel

I read your link and I think there is fair disagreement on the views I expressed, I don't deny that. Neither do I know the amount of scientist who agree with irreducible complexity, verses those who don't. But I disagree with the notion of Gods existence being independant of evolution; in my view, its either one or the other. I am aware of those who believe in both, who have made room for both; I simply see no such room. I think one cancels out the other. Those specific things which do obviously evolve, such as the " Butterfly", from larve to pupi, are simply designed to do so in that pattern, and cannot break away from that to another.

The transformation from larva to pupi to butterfly is not evolution. That is a change in morphological expression through contextual gene activation and deactivation. Evolution requires mutation in genetic material which persists through generations, not just selective expression within a single organism. Changes in genetic material happen during cell replication with mistakes in copying the DNA. Unless this happens within germ-cells (cells used to create offspring) the mutation does not persist into later generations and no evolution occurred.