[left that other site]

this is exactly what you and I were discussing today ping!

[SE Mom]

When I was in nursing school (a thousand years ago) I studied physiology. It was my first spiritual experience. The more I learned about the way our bodies work and function the more I understood the unspeakable intelligence in and through all living beings. I had what I would call glimpses of God- that utterly changed my perspective.

Many years later I took cell biology and had a similar experience only it was more profound because I had years of living to see more of God’s handiwork. I’ve always wondered at the division between science and religion- to me it’s all a matter of language and words- and of course we all come to these discussions with preconceived beliefs.

Still- it seems clear to me that science is just a way to describe God- which turns out to be an impossible task- and yet worthwhile.

[kitkat]

Well worth the read. Thanks.

[BipolarBob]

Life simply cannot come from dead matter. Time does not matter. The Big Bang sterilized all matter and all matter was dead. God is the only solution to the existence of life on earth that has any plausibility.

[reed13k]

for later

[boatbums]

They then point to the plethora of differing religions which all claim to be the one true religion and then argue that none can be true.

That there are a "plethora" of differing religions claiming to be THE one true religion doesn't prove that none can be true. It proves that only one COULD be true and the rest are counterfeits and lies. There had to be truth before there was a lie. Lies are lies because they oppose the truth. The false religion that claims ALL religions lead to God (the spokes of the wheel argument) cannot be true either because most religions are mutually exclusive and, if one is true, its opposite cannot also be true. That is why I KNOW that Christianity is the truth - because it is set apart from all others in that it is not what man must do to bind himself back to God but what God has done to bind man back to Himself. "For by grace you have been saved by faith and not of yourselves."

Thanks for the thread article. The numbers you gave are truly astounding. Some atheists believe in evolution only because the alternative is creation and a Creator.

[HarleyD]

One could ask if they believe if there is life on other planets? If so, what do they base their conclusions on? How about could there be other dimensions that we cannot see in which ghosts appear from time to time?

It never ceases to amaze me that the people who claim to be atheists would readily by faith believe in life on other planets or believe in ghost sightings. Yet you tell them there is a spiritual world and they simply refuse to entertain the notion.

[johngrace]

[johngrace]

[johngrace]

[Moonman62]

But even this part of the equation is incomplete: let’s also consider the probability of the occurrence of the environment in which that perfect primordial soup could exist to support the creation of that first simple organism and its multiplication and evolution into the current form of our species on this earth.

If we can build machines that function in space and on other planets, why didn't God create life that can do the same?

[Excellence]

True story.
A debate was held and broadcast on Fora.tv. The question of the debate was, “Does God exist?” Debating against the existence of God was none other than Christopher Hitchens. I know that the people who sponsored the debate wanted Christopher Hitchens to win the debate because the person they brought in to argue for God was...Al Sharpton.
But before I watched the debate I saw a headline on the Fora website, “Rights group argues for human rights for...ROBOTS!” Now, in order for robots to be “abused,” they must know and understand that they are being abused; in other words, they must be sentient to some degree. How does this happen? With programming by a human hand. It doesn't get there by evolution, and neither did we.
Which brings me to the question I would have asked Christopher Hitchens that would have made his head explode: “Can you imagine a mathematical expression so sophisticated that it is actually sentient?”

[Bill Russell]

I just realized I mistakenly referred to Richard Dawkins as Michael Dawkins in this article. I hope that Dr Dawkins and the readers will forgive my gaff.