You admit that the examples weren't scientific but you manage to say that you still have proven that God can be scientifically proved? I'm sorry, but there's a huge flaw in that logic. You haven't given an example of how to test God's existence, hence you haven't proven that God can be scientifically proven.
I havent said my examples arent scientific tests, they are just not perfect scientific tests, but still scientific nevertheless. the examples could still be conducted anyways, and if any significant result comes from it, it would still be scientific evidence that "suggests" the existence of god
Let me rephrase that: While the methods might be scientific, the results will be of no importance. It's nothing new or strange that people act and think differently while praying, just as there's a difference between when they eat or watch television. We are talking about a force that is out of this world, such a force could never be measured by instruments designed by us. The only thing you would have accomplished with these experiments are that people act differently, and as I said; nothing new about that.
im not just talking about recording the different state of mind people have when they pray, im talking about actual results from praying. you would prove to the satisfaction of every scientists that god exist if just one person regrow his amputated arm simply by praying over it
I doubt that It would just open a new question for scientists to research. It may not have been god. It could have been some freak mutation, etc. God isn't the only possibility for prayers coming true. If I prayed that it would rain tomorrow and it did, maybe it was just weather patterns.
But unforcasted rain is very common. somoene growing back a limb has never ever been done before, and if someone can do it by praying over it, it doesn't prove god exist, but it's a very very strong piece of evidence
Possibly, but I think that it could be used as evidence for the existence of any god(s) until it was proven that nothing else caused it.
ya i have no problem with that statement, all that needs to be changed is to tell the prayer to pray to a specific god.
Anyways, I think that we may be digressing from the original point. I believe in evolution because it has more evidence supporting it, at least currently. If another theory is proposed which makes just as much sense and/or has more proof than evolution, I'd be happy to accept it after some research.
evolution all the way...how does god have anything to do with how we became us?...maybe some alien dropped us fromhis ship 10million years ago and weve been making babies ever since
because god has special powers to do anything and everything u can think by definition! so he could just create us
Personally, Charles Darwin and his 'Big Bang Theory' all the way. I've grown up as a Christian, I was a believer and it may sound wrong, but in the end I stopped believing. I thought maybe I was just doubting and that I would come to realize the things he did/happened were for the better of mankind. Then I wonder, well, If there were a "God" then why have all the bad things happened in my life and many other lives? As an example, why did he let my uncle be killed in the car crash this year? Why did my Nanna have to suffer nearly 20 years of cancer? Why is there always a war going on? I know we all think these things. To me, if he was around staring down at us all then he could have prevented these things and all the trauma that comes along with it. Even by not creating cancer, it would have saved so many lives, I could be sat with my nanna this year celebrating my 21st birthday with her, but no, it won't be happening. This is why I believe in the Big Bang Theory, it's so much more understandable. Also, I don't want anybody to be offended by my post, this is just what I think.
Just a correction, Charles Darwin brought forth the 'Origin of species' aka an evolutionary theory, not the big bang theory. I'm not defending God, but perhaps he "created" cancer to keep the human population from overpopulating and destroying the world. Or, at least, decreasing the rate. And apparently bad things happen to good people because it's a consequence of free will.
As Commyaji is pointing out, there's no way for us mortals to figure out the way of an omniscient god. Maybe all the supposed evil in the world is for the greater good? The issue isn't about if there is a God or not, it's about if God or evolution made humans as they are today.
First off, I want to say wow, 19 pages and almost 100 people voting on this, whew. Second, I think that we all have some good points, but I think that this argument seem kind of pointless, and this is why: People can believe what they want, and if you believe in God, and if you believe in Evolution or Both you can, but its already 19 pages so it seems like its repeating itself, and I don't think anyone is going to change their opinion, expect for a few maybe. I still stand at both, we have gotten some way from Adam and Eve and we may have Evolved but also now we have Evolved in other fields. I dunno I guess that this should be closed down before it gets veered way too far from the point. Whatever.
i personally believe in evolution since i can relate to us evolving from organisms and monkeys. i also believe in evolution because im not christian so the idea of an old man watching over us is just rubbish. up the monkeys!
I take logic into the equation. Put a small baby on the earth, a small human baby. Can it take care of itself? It needs an adult. But, where would that adult come from if there were no babies to grow into an adult? An adult had to come first to give birth and care for said baby. Which the only way I can explain spontaneous adult production, is a cosmic force. God. OooOoooO.
in the case of human, yes, human babies need an adult to help survive but in the cases of many organisms such as starfish or earthworms, they dont
The problem with that argument is that by bringing your logic into it, you seemed to ignore the definition of evolution. If you look at evolution, we didn't just appear as humans. Looking back on the evolutionary trail far enough, we evolved from fish, and as lucasgrabeelrocks mentioned, not all organisms take care of their offspring. If you go back even further, to the time of unicellular organisms, asexual reproduction such as binary fission was the form of reproduction, in which offspring were identical copies of their parents. So not all life needs parents to survive, nor did our ancestors, according to the theory of evolution.
Also, that's not considering the principles of heterotrophs and autotrophs. We are fulyl advancd heterotrophs, relying completely on outside aid to survive. However, animals are much more self-sufficient. Though not likely against the odds, a baby fawn can survive by itself, whereas a human baby cannot. In any case, autotrophs don't need "parents" or parent cells, rather,to survive.