Have atheists redefined science to get rid of God?

Actually, that would only prove that what comes up must come down. It doesn't necessarily prove that gravity exists. You could come to the conclusion that when you throw the ball up, the Earth moves up to prevent it from falling but in doing so, it looks as if the ball has fallen.

It takes a lot more than that to prove that gravity exists and Newton did a lot more than that.



Thus, the human body must be an illusion, because the proof for some of the ways our body works is not as clear and simple.

wolf, The problem with your opinion about gravity is the fact that people throwing up a ball on boths sides of the planet at the very exact moment will experience the same phenomenon; what goes up will come down - not that the earth reaches up to the ball. Logic is a tough contrarian to simple ideas such as you propose.

Not so, ci, the earth could be constantly expanding (with an acceleration of 9.8m/s2), as is everything else. But that's not wolf's point, which is, I believe, that very few accepted physical laws are directly observable, most require many observations, calculations, inferences etc.

If thrown up to the same height, it'll come down at the same time - expansion or no expansion.

Since when were we talking about God? I am still waiting for proof on evolution as the origin of man. Changing the focus just avoids the question I asked.

Ive read the Bible numerous times, various versions of revealed "truth' .Howbout you read some evolution texts, then we talk. Im afraid , and no criticism. that when you say "I see no proof" That means you have totally evadedc going near things like libraries and textbooks.
I can reccomend 2 good ones
Ernst Mayr-What Evolution Is
and
James Watsons DNA.
If you read DNA and dont come back shaken in your pronouncements about "evolution has no proof" then I am afraid we are dealing with wildly differing definitions of "proof" and "evidence" and "fact".

The side-by-side cmparisons of genomes in same chromosomes of differing animals like a chimp or mouse and man are amazing. The amazing thing is the miles of similar exons and nuons, and wildly different intron zones , all among totally differing species. I dont see how you can deny that all these animals dont have roots in similar species while still showing the vast differences in non coding sectionswhere evolution has worked its adaptive clipping.
Theres a big difference between saying, "I dont understand the proof" and "I dont see any proof". I think you are more the formr.

I still don't see the proof.
Let me tell you what I do see. I see a group of people so slavishly devoted to evolution that they cannot conceive of it not being true.
The DNA similarities you mention (and that I knew about already) could support the conclusion as well that DNA was designed and did not evolve. The conclusion of evolution from DNA similarity is still conjecture and NOT fact.
No direct evidence.

gospel, What would you think about your god when man creates another human from DNA?

If the act were truly creation then man would have had to create the DNA in the first place.
The fact that man can manipulate the natural world does not mean that man can replace God (athough some sure try) God is still God and man is as usual still man.
How do you know that God did not forsee man doing this and make allowances for it?

But why do christians keep saying "god created me!"

gospelman, so we have admitted that design does not preclude evolution, youve come far. I think your somewhat afraid to fully understand the significance of multiple genomes that differ in specific sequences that confer the major morph differences among many species. The more genome we compare, the more similarities among the genomes and the more the scientific appreciation of how 'economic " DNA is in the preservation of "preffered races" (in Drawins words).
You try to have it .both ways, you say there isnt enough time to evolve vastly different species , but when genomics shows how related all life is, and how the major bauplanes relate, you then want there to be some vast "Intelligence" .
You boys are consistently inconsistent, and without anybody of that ilk doing any actual research , all you do is try to find some chinks in the works of reserachers (many of whom are commited religionists , just not commited to ignoring strong data to try to retain their religious beliefs intact)
SCience gradually moves religion to its rightful domain while keepingreligion from believing that it has a scientific "side".
Have you read Watsons book? did you look at the compared genomic sections of a single gene section. The similarities are important and, if they were the only thing , I might agree with you that there is a universal bauplne. However, the introns and stop codon areas and their vast differences between entire area s of exact exons and nuons refutes your ID concept. It shows that , through time, some structues were "workedout" dispensed with and just sort of hang there on the gene as a section of useless "barcode".

The rapidity with which we can take divergent species and compare their genomes and see the vast similarities separated by vast differences in the noncoding sections and accumulated mutations , can almost be used as a genetic clock to determine how long ago the two living species diverhged. AND THEN, comparing the geomorphic processes that account for their geographic isolation, we can compare the "clock" with some other convergent data.

Im always looking for vast holes in the data, because i sometimes have to prepare for forensic applications and we use differences in genomes of bacteria in related geologic provinces to show how these provinces relate in their connate subsurface water. WE also use isotope ratios from C12/13/14 to compare the migration and timing of the movement of waters. We try to develop t least 3 convergent and different modes of evidence.
There are too many day to day working scientists who have pecialties that theyve spent years in mastering and till learning new things and forgetting old arguments. Your pronouncement o"seeing no proof" is regrettable , but its certainly not affecting advances in the fields.

Evolution is like any other applied science, it has people who get it and adopt its evidence, and their are people who, like Einstein, never bought into quantum theory. That didnt make one bit of difference to quantum theory and all the new pieces of lab equipment that grew out of this theory.

yep... let's confess it now. The whole purpose of science is...to disprove a god.

Antibiotics, the Cassini mission, atomic energy, computers, televisions, phones, tsunami warning systems, satelites,deep space telescopes, GPS, RADAR, superglue, techno music, UV block, chemotherapy, air-bags, walking on the moon, .....all that stuff is just a convenient spin-off from the real purpose of science...to make preists look silly (sillier).

I don't know...probably God created everything-the world-the animals-the humans...so he created me. But to be accurate, I'd say that what God actually created (Adam and Eve) was a heckofalot better than what we have today.

But god knew what he created from start to finish; what's the beef?

When we decided to go against his will, death entered the world, along with defects, abnoralities, and other problems.

Do you mean that metaphorically, or literally?

Yo Thunder,
....You realize of course that if you go against God, it's beause of certain, weaknesses, and/or defiant attitudes instilled in us by the creator. that seems like one of those things that make you go, hmmm.... :wink:

I suppose both.



God created us without absolute knowledge, and he has given us a place where we can discover his creation. In the garden of Eden, Adam and Eve decided that they would rather just eat from the tree, than discover it for themselves. God specifically not to do something, and we did it...whose fault? Ours, I'd say.

thunder, So you don't see the problem with two people, Adam and Eve, who brought sin to mankind, and made us all suffer? Group penalty is never a form of equal justice. Also, god created all the forms of sin of this world, he created everything. He created man and all the good and bad that comes with it. Can't own only "parts" of humans as the 'creator.'

Alright!....C.I. on the back-up.Seems like old times, if my memory serves me right..