Can someone explain this phrase?

Question

I've heard several Christians say:

"The more scientists discover, the more proof they provide for the existence of God."

Honestly, that makes no sense to me. I see it the other way around. Someone enlighten me...

Answer 1

No, this is just something that a believer said to help him keep a hold of his own faith. In reality, scientific discovery has proven that the Universe is uncaring, and that there is no one watching out for us.

Answer 2

Okay I'll indulge you for a tad. In the early 1950s Stanley Miller created an experiment where, by using the estimated early atomosphere of earth, and using electricity to subsitute for lightning, he created amino acids. However he used a hydrogen-rich mixture of methane, ammonia and water vapor which many scientists at the time thought the early earth was composed of. While nobody knows for sure what the early atmosphere consisted of, today it is generally thought that there was very little hydrogen, and a lot of carbon dioxide, nitrogen and water vapor. Scientists who defend Miller though say that if the realistic atomsphere was used, you'd still get organic molecules, but the organic molecules that you would get would be formaldehyde..... Cyanide. Obviously, you will not have life spring up amongst cyanide, it just obliterates embryos. Thus the more that is learned about the early atmosphere, and how life may have sprung up, just makes the "how life originated" question so much more miraculous.

Then there is Darwin's Tree of Life, where he suggested that life sort of branches out. Specificially, Darwin calculated that evolution would be a very slow process and would have no great or sudden modifications. However the Cambrian explosion turns Darwin's Tree of Life upside down. Prior to the Cambrian explosion there are some jellyfish and worms, but once the Cambrian Explosion hits there are modern insects, crabs, starfish, sea urchins, and modern vertebrates. All of these are entirely different structures from each other. Defenders of Evolution have said that previous species simply were unable to fossilize, but there have been microfossils of bacteria found in rocks and soft bodied species dated prior to the Cambrian explosion that have been found, so the idea that species simply were unable to fossilize doesn't fit if even the simple species were able to fossilize. But I don't dwell on the matter much, I am more into history, not science. Maybe someday I'll get into the history of science, but not for now.

Books to check out:

Denton, Michael "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis"
Hanegraaff, Hank "The Face that Demonstrates the Farce of Evolution"
Johnson, Phillip "Darwin on Trial"
Wells, Jonathan "Icons of Evolution"
Dembski, William "The Design Revolution: Answering the Toughest Questions about Intelligent Design"
Meyer, Stephen C "Evidence for Design in Physics and Biology"
Witham, Larry "By Design: Science and the Search for God"
Craig, William Lane "Design and the Cosmological Argument"
Collins, Robin "A Scientific Argument for the Existence of God"
Ward, Peter "Rare Earth"
Behe, Michael J "Darwin's Breakdown: Irreducible Complexity and Design at the Foundation of Life"
Meyer, Stepehn C "The Cambrian Information Explosion: Evidence for Intelligent Design" and "DNA and the origin of life"

Those should hold ya over for a few weeks.

Answer 3

Big Bang
Many scientist/evolutionists believe in a Big Bang Theory, which says all of the matter present in the universe today was once in a plasma ball of electrons, photons, positrons, and neutrinos (no explanation is given about how it got there). Scientists say that 15 billion years ago this huge cosmic ball exploded. Living-matter was somehow formed. This matter developed the ability to see, hear, and smell, and eventually grew arms and legs (although at first they were fins). And after millions of years of evolution here we are. Here we are, with our three-pound brain composed of twelve billion neurons, which make 120 trillion various connections. That is like saying a bomb exploded in a junkyard, and put together a running automobile.
There is a lot of evidence supporting creation. According to the theory of natural selection which the evolutionists cling to, everything that evolves must have a purpose or it would not have evolved in the first place (random chance produces a characteristic, but survival of the fittest ensures its existence). Thus, they can't explain the hidden beauty that many life forms exhibit, like the inside of a sea shell. Supposedly life evolved from non-living matter, to living matter, to one-celled creatures, to fish, to amphibians, to reptiles, and finally to mammals; so evolutionists can't explain the origin of whales or dolphins (mammals that live in the sea). If the earth rotated at a 1/10 slower speed, the days would be so hot that all life would be burned to a crisp. If the earth's crust was any thicker, it would absorb more oxygen, and leave only carbon dioxide, thus preventing life. If the earth had only a two degree higher average temperature, all the glaciers would melt, thus submerging the globe. Hurricanes are created when very cold air meets very hot air; so if the earth wasn't tilted on its axis, it would be so cold at the poles and so hot in the center that hurricanes would rip across the globe preventing life of any kind. The probability of life just coming into existence has been calculated at (using generous figures) one chance in ten to the 280th power. If we evolved from a one-celled creature, why or how did some of us evolve into the male sex and some into the female sex? If evolution were true, there would be such a blending together of life-forms you couldn't tell the dogs from the cats due to all the cogs and dats running around.
Everything has a creator/designer for me it only makes sence that evidence points to someone/thing much more powerful, GOD.

Answer 4

Science is discovering more and more that the Universe is too complex to have appeared for no reason. Let me provide 10 reasons against Evolution.
Evidence #1
There are no transitional links and intermediate forms in either the fossil record or the modern world. Therefore, there is no actual evidence that evolution has occurred either in the past or the present.
Evidence #2
Natural selection (the supposed evolution mechanism, along with mutations) is incapable of advancing an organism to a "higher-order".
Evidence #3
Although evolutionists state that life resulted from non-life, matter resulted from nothing, and humans resulted from animals, each of these is an impossibility of science and the natural world.
Evidence #4
The supposed hominids (creatures in-between ape and human that evolutionists believe used to exist) bones and skull record used by evolutionists often consists of `finds' which are thoroughly unrevealing and inconsistent. They are neither clear nor conclusive even though evolutionists present them as if they were.
Evidence #5
Nine of the twelve popularly supposed hominids are actually extinct apes/ monkeys and not part human at all.
Evidence #6
The final three supposed hominids put forth by evolutionists are actually modern human beings and not part monkey/ ape at all. Therefore, all twelve of the supposed hominids can be explained as being either fully monkey/ ape or fully modern human but not as something in between.
Evidence #7
Natural selection can be seen to have insurmountable social and practical inconsistencies.
Evidence #8
Natural selection has severe logical inconsistencies.
Evidence #9
The rock strata finds (layers of buried fossils) are better explained by a universal flood than by evolution.

Answer 5

I think more than anything scientists are finding God personally, not proving that he exists. I believe that's what that saying initially meant. Not necessarily that there's any REAL proof that God exists. Outside of having a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, an unbeliever wouldn't really know what we as Christians experience that give us the proof that God and Jesus are very real.

Answer 6

ahh the marvels of science! Man discovering the secrets and wonders of God's creation.

If we ever find intelligent life elsewhere in the Universe the Churches will attempt to destroy it to protect their continued lies and bullshit

Just like they tried to prevent the translation of the Rosetta Stone to support the silly story of Noah's Ark and the great flood that washed all sin from the world. Total lies!.

The pyramids were built before the floods and the civilization of the Egyptians was in fiull swing. No such flood was experienced in Egypt and the Rosetta stone proved this. The Church Dignitaries tried to suppress the translation and also have the tranlator a french man killed to prevent the exposure of their lies. This is just one such event that religious orders have interfered in to protect their lying hides and their undeserved power base of richness and pseudo royalty

Answer 7

The way it makes no sense to you is infact the definition, this sounds to me like a phrase made up by a religious person to state that everything that scientists discover, just prooves the more things that god has created... or something to that extent.

Answer 8

God said "I am the light".

Scientists now realise that matter is made from energy and energy from light. Do you think thousands of years ago, people would have known this? NO way!

Scientists now realise that the world might not have been made in millions of years because archaelogists have found tree trunks running through those layers of soil that used to represent millions of years.

Scientists now realise that if the polar ice cap melts, it would indeed flood the earth like in Noah's time.

Scientists now realise that evolution is crap because man could not have come from monkeys since it is too complicated and there are not millions of fossils available to prove this 'transition' from ape to men.

God from the bible is the greatest. allah from islam has been proven to be crap material.

Answer 9

depends on what kind of thing you were watching.... just like some scientists are for animal testing to learn about animals, and others are for animal testing to learn about cosmetics.......

okay i got nothing. some scientists are out there to prove the existance, some are to do just the opposite........soooooooooooooooooooooooooo

omg. i should get to bed. sorry.

Answer 10

The more we discover and learn, the more we realize we do not know, and can not explain.