God discovered by Science

[rational experiences]

Some scientists believe as the inventor they are hence the creator.

Think and believe they can create God by thesis first.

As earth dusts they gave a thesis to as dust. To convert it.

Is who you argue against.

His mind. His belief a human discussing earth where he said his science practice beginnings came from. Is God all types of variable energies.

As science applies Multi conversions. Multi comparisons recorded as he applies it inventing more space himself. Gets possessed as his thoughts change in the spaces he invented creation.

Converting mass forcing God substance to disappear himself. Relativity God does not disappear in space law first.

How science possessed his own mind in Alchemy history. Recorded fed back. Brother holy consciousness observed and knew him.

So one theory is if I shift time God earth can disappear then come back. If I know God.

Yet his machine taken from earth mass first would disappear too.

Instead it overheats so he shuts it off.

Is his theory I know God. Which is only relative to the presence of matter.

Then he theories bio. You began from a UFO conversion of God stone and heavenly gases. By not a God.

Oh you mean a sun mass ball that stops cars energy lights as it consumes energy?

Yes he says. That's right you alien human inventor machinist.

Whole theory thought by his man's life head. Thin the king.

Human de evolution in fact looking back pretending a human is removed by his thoughts.

Back to the mass body that he was advised had previously caused it. UFO.

Is it any wonder he sacrificed life?

 

[Watchmen]

If god was discovered by science, it’d be a bigger story than some idle RF chatter.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Hey Dan, thanks for commenting.
I don't know how Evolution can be reproduced in the field. Unless you mean the study of what some scientists say are examples of evolutionary by products. No new species has ever been observed arising in the "field" within the lifetime of a human being.
And if you mean to reference GMO crops or selective breeding when you say "we eat the results" your mistaken on what natural evolution is and being studied in a lab is not the same as reproducing in a lab. And, even if it were, if anything your examples testify to the need for intelligently directed processes to get the ball started.
Why does everybody on here always reference the emotions of another seemingly as if they have none? How can I be mad over a process? Either it is or it isn't true. What in my statements makes people think I'm mad either way? I may get upset at being wrong, who on here wouldn't be, but mad? I don't feel mad at evolution. I feel mad at how some people treat others here but that's different.
If anything I'm playing the devils advocate here because that is one good way to advance in knowledge. We shouldn't shy away from questions because we're afraid of the answers. Are you mad that there might be a creator? A lot of people seem to make up their minds on that issue based on what they feel a creator being should or shouldn't do or be like if it existed.

I have read the research reports on experiments in evolution including observed speciation. I have even read about the generation of one species from another simply by turning on silenced genes.

Not just GMO's, but all crops and food animals are the result of artificial evolution. And that is evidence of a human intelligence, but nothing else can be said regarding an intelligent designer.

Because there is no other reason to reject evolution that I have seen coming from theists that reject it. I did not say mad. Why did you say mad? Did I score a hit?

Dude, I am a Christian. Your question about my being mad that there might be a Creator has no relevance to me.

 

[Sheldon]

Rather than leave open the question of the supernatural being possible many scientists do what they accuse theists of doing. They fill in the "gaps" with (science will eventually solve it) completely disregarding the other possibility without definitive proof. Premature if you ask me.

Firstly what an individual scientists says or believes is not necessarily supported by the scientific method or a consensus based on scientific evidence.

Secondly all scientific ideas must be falsifiable, it's a base requirement before the method can be used, and of course ideas must provide some data that science can examine. Science does reject ideas that are unfalsifiable, as they are meaningless, because we can learn nothing from them.

Thirdly science does not deal in proof, proofs are for mathematics and logic.

Lastly it is nonsensical to claim science is not keeping an open mind, that is not how science works, not is science hostile to theism or religious beliefs, it's just that what science evidences and understands all matches reality without any evidence of or need for any deity or anything supernatural.

Have you ever heard of the Templeton foundation? I suggest you take a look, as a theist who was enormously wealthy John Templeton bequeathed in perpetuity a huge financial prize to anyone who could demsonrate any scientific evidence for anything spiritual or supernatural. It has never been claimed, read into that what you will.

The hostility many theists so often exhibit towards science, is not because science is hostile to religion. It is because the scientific method follows where the evidence leads, and doesn't care if the results refute longstanding and cherished beliefs. What we need to ask ourselves is which is more important to us, what we believe, or whether what we believe is true.

For me it is the latter, and so I I hold no belief I wouldn't abandon if the evidence demanded it, and no belief for which no or insufficient objective evidence can be demonstrated. If a claim or belief is unfalsifiable then I must remain agnostic about it, but I also must withhold belief, as I cannot rationally believe them all, and it would be biased and therefore closed minded to believe one or some of them, and not others.