Has science discovered God?

This is truly an impressive article in my eyes.
http://y-jesus.com/more/scc-science-christianity-compatible/

Originally posted by Mammy Blue
This is truly an impressive article in my eyes.
http://y-jesus.com/more/scc-science-christianity-compatible/

Which part is impressive? I'm struggling to find it.

Originally posted by Mammy Blue
This is truly an impressive article in my eyes.
http://y-jesus.com/more/scc-science-christianity-compatible/

Good article, thanks...

Seriously... the impressive part... where is it?

Originally posted by Great King Rat
Seriously... the impressive part... where is it?

Your response tells me you do not belong on this forum... seriously 🙂

Originally posted by Mammy Blue
Your response tells me you do not belong on this forum... seriously 🙂

Something tells me that if you don't have a better retort to Great King Rat's response than this, then you may not have much of worth to contribute to this forum. 😀

Originally posted by Mammy Blue
Your response tells me you do not belong on this forum... seriously 🙂

And with this you now have made TWO statements that require clarification.

Let's stick to the first one. Don't want to make too difficult for you.

Which parts of the article impressed you? I read it. There was nothing impressive to be found for me. I wonder therefore what you found impressive.

Originally posted by Mammy Blue
This is truly an impressive article in my eyes.
http://y-jesus.com/more/scc-science-christianity-compatible/

All we can conclude from that is that you are over easily impressed.

Originally posted by Great King Rat
And with this you now have made TWO statements that require clarification.

Let's stick to the first one. Don't want to make too difficult for you.

Which parts of the article impressed you? I read it. There was nothing impressive to be found for me. I wonder therefore what you found impressive.

Here is my quick overview summary of the article:

1. The universe had a beginning

2. The universe is just right for life

3. DNA coding reveals intelligence

Science is unable to tell us what or who caused the universe to begin. But some believe it clearly points to a Creator.

Cosmologists, who specialize in the study of the universe and its origins, soon realized that a chance cosmic explosion could never bring about life any more than a nuclear bomb would—unless it was precisely engineered to do so. And that meant a designer must have planned it.

Physicists calculated that for life to exist, gravity and the other forces of nature needed to be just right or our universe couldn’t exist. And for life to exist, the conditions in our solar system and planet also need to be just right. The size, temperature, relative proximity, and chemical makeup of our planet, sun, and moon also need to be just right. And there are dozens of other conditions that needed to be exquisitely fine-tuned or we wouldn’t be here to think about it.

A mere pinhead of DNA contains information equivalent to a stack of paperback books that would encircle the earth 5,000 times. And DNA operates like a language with its own extremely complex software code. Microsoft founder Bill Gates says that the software of DNA is “far, far more complex than any software we have ever developed.”

Dawkins and other materialists believe that all this complexity originated through natural selection. Yet, as Crick remarked, natural selection could never have produced the first molecule. Many scientists believe that the coding within the DNA molecule points to an intelligence far exceeding what could have occurred by natural causes.

In the early 21st century, leading atheist Antony Flew’s atheism came to an abrupt end when he studied the intelligence behind DNA. Flew explains what changed his opinion.

What I think the DNA material has done is to show that intelligence must have been involved in getting these extraordinarily diverse elements together. The enormous complexity by which the results were achieved look to me like the work of intelligence…. It now seems to me that the finding of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design.

As an agnostic, Jastrow had no Christian agenda behind his conclusions. However, he freely acknowledges the compelling case for a Creator. Jastrow writes of the shock and despair experienced by scientists who thought they had squeezed God out of their world.

For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.

Some here lack the ability to be impressed by anything they can't sense and they lack most of their senses. So don't be discouraged if you don't get it at first. It may suddenly come to you when you least expect it. Have faith.
😏

Originally posted by FMF
Something tells me that if you don't have a better retort to Great King Rat's response than this, then you may not have much of worth to contribute to this forum. 😀

Contrary to my impression of RJHinds, I could not agree more on HIS response to my post, especially his last two sentences.
To recap, if you don't see it, don't shoot the messenger.
And I repeat; if you don't agree with the article, go elsewhere to reinforce your agnostic views.
I appreciate the positive responses, and that's all I'll read on this forum from now on.
All the rest, don't waste your time here.

Originally posted by Mammy Blue
Contrary to my impression of RJHinds, I could not agree more on HIS response to my post, especially his last two sentences.
To recap, if you don't see it, don't shoot the messenger.
And I repeat; if you don't agree with the article, go elsewhere to reinforce your agnostic views.
I appreciate the positive responses, and that's all I'll read on this forum from now on.
All the rest, don't waste your time here.

You said it is truly an impressive article. Which bits of the article do you think are the most impressive? Perhaps if you think it's only impressive to those who already hold the same beliefs as you, then you should simply say so. If you are hoping to persuade those who have different beliefs from you, then answering the "Which bits of the article do you think are the most impressive?" question is surely only common sense, no?

Originally posted by RJHinds
Here is my quick overview summary of the article:

1. The universe had a beginning

2. The universe is just right for life

3. DNA coding reveals intelligence

Science is unable to tell us what or who caused the universe to begin. But some believe it clearly points to a Creator.

Cosmologists, who specialize in the study of the universe and its o ...[text shortened]... ou don't get it at first. It may suddenly come to you when you least expect it. Have faith.
😏

This post is plagiarized.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Here is my quick overview summary of the article:

1. The universe had a beginning

2. The universe is just right for life

3. DNA coding reveals intelligence

Science is unable to tell us what or who caused the universe to begin. But some believe it clearly points to a Creator.

Cosmologists, who specialize in the study of the universe and its o ...[text shortened]... ou don't get it at first. It may suddenly come to you when you least expect it. Have faith.
😏

YOU ARE A WASTE OF OXYGEN

RFID microchips implanted under the skin and wearable technology (Smart Tattoos)

YouTube

Originally posted by redbadger
YOU ARE A WASTE OF OXYGEN

This response clearly shows it hit home. What do they say about "back of the net"?