Why is it some think that science disproves the existance of God. The scriptures say we are Gods special gems

Question

DNA finally has proven each of us is different. Security can use eye prints, finger prints, facial structure. Science will continue to find differences in each one of us. We truly are special.

Answer 1

Science has recently unraveled one of the most amazing facts of all concerning heredity. DNA, a shortened name for deoxyribonucleic acid, has been found to be the carrier of the inheritance code in all living things. It constitutes a built-in memory, blueprint, or biogenetic law that keeps all forms of life within their basic kinds. Your personal DNA is scattered throughout your body in over 60 thousand billion specks and determines everything from your eye color and height to your fingerprints. The DNA barrier insures that neither mutations nor natural "selection" nor any other factor proposed by advocates of evolution could result in the forming of a different kind of life from a previous kind.
"The chance that useful DNA molecules would develop without a Designer are apparently zero. Then let me conclude by asking which came first-the DNA which is essential for the synthesis of proteins or the protein enzyme DNA-polymerase without which DNA synthesis is nil? there is virtually no chance that chemical 'letters' would spontaneously produce coherent DNA and protein 'words'" (George Howe, expert in biology sciences).
"The set of genetic instructions for humans is roughly three billion letters long" (Miroslav Radman & Robert Wagner, "The High Fidelity of DNA Duplication," Scientific America, Vol. 259, No. 2, August 1988, pp. 4046).
"DNA and the molecules that surround it form a truly superb mechanism-a miniaturized marvel. The information is so compactly stored that the amount of DNA necessary to code all the people living on our planet might fit into a space no larger than an aspirin tablet" (Paul S. Taylor, The Illustrated Origins Answer Book, p. 23).
"Life cannot have had a random beginning. The trouble is that there are about two thousand enzymes, and the chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is only one part in 10 to the power of 40,000, an outrageously small probability that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup. If one is not prejudiced either by social beliefs or by a scientific training into the conviction that life originated on the Earth, this simple calculation wipes the idea entirely out of court" (Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution From Space).
"An intelligible communication via radio signal from some distant galaxy would be widely hailed as evidence of an intelligent source. Why then doesn't the message sequence on the DNA molecule also constitute prima facie evidence for an intelligent source? After all, DNA information is not just analogous to a message sequence such as Morse code, it is such a message sequence" (Charles B. Thaxton, Walter L. Bradley, and Robert L. Olsen: The Mystery of Life's Origin, Reassessing Current Theories, New York Philosophical Library, 1984, pp. 211, 212).
"Generation after generation, through countless cell divisions, the genetic heritage of living things is scrupulously preserved in DNA. All of life depends on the accurate transmission of information. As genetic messages are passed through generations of dividing cells, even small mistakes can be life-threateningif mistakes were as rare as one in a million, 3000 mistakes would be made during each duplication of the human genome. Since the genome replicates about a million billion times in the course of building a human being from a single fertilized egg, it is unlikely that the human organism could tolerate such a high rate of error. In fact, the actual rate of mistakes is more like one in 10 billion" (Miroslav Radman and Robert Wagner, "The High Fidelity of DNA Duplication...," Scientific America, Vol. 299, No 2, August 1988, pp. 4044, p. 24).
"In the meantime, the educated public continues to believe that Darwin has provided all the relevant answers by the magic formula of random mutations plus natural selection-quite unaware of the fact that random mutations turned out to be irrelevant and natural selection a tautology" (Arthur Koestler, author).
"Evolution lacks a scientifically acceptable explanation of the source of the precisely planned codes within cells without which there can be no specific proteins and hence, no life" (David A. Kaufman, Ph.D., University of Florida, Gainesville).
"Once we see, however, that the probability of life originating at random is so utterly minuscule as to make it absurd, it becomes sensible to think that the favourable properties of physics on which life depends are in every respect deliberate. It is therefore almost inevitable that our own measure of intelligence must reflecthigher intelligenceseven to the limit of Godsuch a theory is so obvious that one wonders why it is not widely accepted as being self-evident. The reasons are psychological rather than scientific" (Sir Fred Hoyle, well-known British mathematician, astronomer, and cosmologist).
"Ultimately, the Darwinian theory of evolution is no more nor less than the great cosmogenic myth of the twentieth century" (Michael Denton, Evolution, A Theory in Crisis, p. 358).
"Any suppression which undermines and destroys that very foundation on which scientific methodology and research was erected, evolutionist or otherwise, cannot and must not be allowed to flourish. It is a confrontation between scientific objectivity and ingrained prejudice-between logic and emotion-between fact and fiction.In the final analysis, objective scientific logic has to prevail-no matter what the final result is-no matter how many time-honored idols have to be discarded in the process. After all, it is not the duty of science to defend the theory of evolution and stick by it to the bitter end-no matter what illogical and unsupported conclusions it offers. If in the process of impartial scientific logic, they find that creation by outside intelligence is the solution to our quandary, then let's cut the umbilical chord that tied us down to Darwin for such a long time. It is choking us and holding us back. Every single concept advanced by the theory of evolution and amended thereafter is imaginary as it is not supported by the scientifically established probability concepts. Darwin was wrong. The theory of evolution may be the worst mistake made in science" (I. L. Cohen, Darwin Was Wrong-A Study in Probabilities, PO Box 231, Greenvale, New York 11548: New Research Publications, Inc., pp. 68, 209210, 214215. I. L. Cohen is a member of the New York Academy of Sciences and officer of the Archaeological Institute of America).
"The notion thatthe operating program of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in a primordial soup here on earth is evidently nonsense of a high order" (Sir Fredrick Hoyle, evolutionist).
"The theory of Evolutionwill be one of the great jokes in the history books of the future. Posterity will marvel that so flimsy and dubious an hypothesis could be accepted with the incredible credulity it has" (Malcolm Muggeridge, well-known philosopher).
"We have had enough of the Darwinian fallacy. It is time that we cry: 'The emperor has no clothes'" (K. Hsu, geologist at the Geological Institute at Zurich).
"Far from being an established fact of science that it is so typically portrayed to be, evolution is, in reality, an unreasonable and unfounded hypothesis that is riddled with countless scientific fallacies" (Scott M. Huse, The Collapse of Evolution, Baker Book House: Grand Rapids, Michigan, p. 127).
"Unfortunately many scientists and non-scientists have made Evolution into a religion, something to be defended against infidels. In my experience, many students of biology-professors and textbook writers included-have been so carried away with the arguments for Evolution that they neglect to question it. They preach it.College students, having gone through such a closed system of education, themselves become teachers, entering high schools to continue the process, using textbooks written by former classmates or professors. High standards of scholarship and teaching break down. Propaganda and the pursuit of power replace the pursuit [of] knowledge. Education becomes a fraud" (George Kocan, "Evolution Isn't Faith But Theory," Chicago Tribune, Monday, April 21, 1980).
"Scientists who go about teaching that Evolution is a fact of life are great con men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In explaining Evolution we do not have one iota of fact" (Dr. T. N. Tahmisian, a former U.S. Atomic Energy Commission physiologist).
"Evolution is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless" (Dr. Louise Bounoure, director of research at the French National Center for Scientific Research, director of the Zoological Museum, and former president of the Biological Society of Strasbourg).
"I, as a scientist, must postulate a source of information to supply the teleonomy or know-how, I don't find it in the universe, and, therefore, I assume that it is transcendent to this universe. I believe, myself, in a living God who did it. I believe that this God, who supplied the information, revealed Himself in the form of a man-so that man could understand Him. We are made to understand. I want to understand God. But I can only do it if He comes down to my wavelength, the wavelength of man. I believe that God revealed Himself in the form of Christ, and that we can serve Him and know Him in our hearts as the source of the Logos-all information is necessary to make the universe and to make life itself.Look at the beauty of nature around us. When you consider that it all grew out of matter injected with information of the type I have been describing, you can only be filled with wonder of the wisdom of a Creator, who, first of all, had the sense of beauty to do it, and then the technical ability. I am filled with wonder as I look at nature, to see how God technically did it and realized the beauty of His own soul in doing it. The Scripture teaches perfectly plainly, and it fits in with my science perfectly well, that the One who did called Himself The Logos. That Logos was Jesus. Jesus called Himself the Creator who made everything-'for Him and by Him'. Now, if that is the case, then I am very happy and filled with joy that He made the Creation so beautiful and that He also valued me enough to die for me, to become my Redeemer as well" (Arthur E. Wilder-Smith, Ph.D., D.Sc., Dr. es. Sc., The Natural Sciences Know Nothing of Evolution, Santee, California: Master Books, p. 154).

Answer 2

Science does not disaprove or even challenge the existance of god.

It is simply saying how it feels the world began, based on evidence. Not supporting the bible does not challenge its importance or meaning, just its literal meaning. And christians hate that.

Evolution, the world is 6000 years old, the earth is round, the earth revolves around the sun, the earth is not the centre of the universe/galaxy.

Science is batting 1.000 against the scripture. I believe in science, i believe in evolution and i believe in god. I just do not take the bible literally.

The world is 6000 years old thing is a perfect example, this is based on work from in the 1600's or something by a bishop. He said the world was created at 9am, Sunday October 23rd (my birthday) 4004bc.

9am? If its 11 central, and 6eastern, what time is god running on?

The world is flat, god above, satan below? oops. the earth is the centre of the galaxy, because we are 'special'

sorry, it just ain't that way. Neither science nor I are saying the Human race is not special, it just is not special as outline in traditional Christian teachings. And these teachings were never based on the words of God.

Answer 3

God created DNA in the beginning. Science is just now finding out about it. God created each of us individually. Science has never created a human being. If it was up to science, we would still have the early remnants of mankind, the ones that were supposedly descended from monkeys and accidentally from the big bang. I look around each living minute and thank God for what He did and is doing. Anyone who thinks all of this is evolved or accidental is more gullible than scientific.

Thank God for His creation of which I am a part and thank Him for all of His other wonderful creation. Think what it would have been like without sin and will one day be like without sin. There will be no sin in heaven. We can't even imagine what that will be like. How glorious it will be to live like we were created to live.

Answer 4

1. Science has never disproven god's existence. Science is unconcerned whether god exists or not. It is generally considered more difficult to disprove something than to prove it. (some would argue it's impossible to disprove a negative) Nobody has ever proven god's existence either though.

2. Why do christians continue to use the circular logic of "the bible says god exists, and god wrote the bible therefore it is true"

Answer 5

it's not so much that science PROVES the non-existance of god. it's simply that science does not have enough evidence to suggest it one way or the other. Furthermore, scientists do not regard "scriptures" as scientific proof of anything. that's literally basing a hypothesis on hearsay. real science doesnt work like that.

i'm not sure where you'r going with the differences, but without science, you'd still be believeing in faries and demons, instead of germs and DNA.

Answer 6

Science proves there is God because there are many archeological artefacts that are out there that the Bible has mentioned of (check in Nelsons Encyclopaedia of the Bible), and science has also prove there is no God as you can say anything could be twisted and given false truth, it only defends on the person to accept or deny it. Anyone can claim things, I go with the things I have experienced of and tried=Jesus.

Answer 7

You are correct. You have no idea how true this is. I did not believe it until this happened to me. Several years ago I had an unusual experience concerning an uncle, a distant relative who lived over a thousand miles away.

While driving my car I suddenly felt the unmistakable presence of this relative that I hardly even knew. He was more like someone I had heard about than someone I knew. It was very strange; it felt as though I was momentarily lifted right out of my physical body. I seemed to be suspended somehow beyond space and time, bathed in a love so intense It felt like I could have just disappear into it at any moment if It would have let me. It only lasted for a few seconds, but it seemed to last forever at the same time. I realize how crazy this must sound. The experience was so strong that at first I was afraid I was loosing my grip on reality. I finally managed to chalk it up to an over active imagination.

Three days later I got a call from my aunt telling me that this uncle we are talking about had gone into a coma and died the day I had the experience. It felt like ice water had been poured down my back when she told me this. I had lost any real ideas of God or faith and had become somewhat of an atheist. Needless to say this experience caused me to rethink some of the conclusions I had come to.

I feel blessed to now understand that even in our darkest confusion something loves us so much that it went out of its way to assist me and bring me back to a state of absolute certainty about Gods love for us.
During the experience it seemed like there was a vast amount of information that I was somehow allowed access to. One thing that I came away from this experience understanding beyond any shadow of a doubt was that any Idea that God is unhappy with us or would judge or allow us to be punished for any reason is simply impossible.

I can’t explain the love I felt with words. They simply don’t make words big enough or complete enough to do this. The only way I can begin to convey this love to you is to say that there was simply nothing else there. Nothing but love. No hint of judgment, no displeasure of any sort. It is as though God sees us as being as perfect as we were the day we were created. It is only in our confused idea of ourselves that we seem to have changed.

I hope this is of some help to you. Good luck. Love and blessings.

Your brother don

Answer 8

Science cannot prove their religion of Evolution and has failed to disprove the existance of a God.

Answer 9

Science confirms the existence of God. We were made in Gods image. We are not apes. Apes are apes. If we were apes then there would be no apes. Evolution doesn't work that way. If you evolve, then the former no longer exists. Right?

Answer 10

The fact that science can't disprove God means that He exists (see the Scientific Method.)

We believe that gravity exists...not because we can prove it...but because we can't disprove it.

Folks who believe that something exists only because it can be proved, are relying on what's known as "junk science."

Answer 11

Some refuse to accept the fact that God created this complex world. They fail to see that He has that kind of power.