Hey everyone! Atheist and ya'll who don't belive in the existence of God. I stumbled on this link just now and I agree with everything in it. The truth is, Science now agrees that God exists! How great is that?

Note : I don't own the blog so this is not a means to draw traffic into the site

Lemme copy and paste all in here.

Cc Lalasticala and Seun

Has Science Discovered God? Einstein didn’t believe it was possible. Stephen Hawking said it might be the greatest
scientific discovery of all time. What discovery has baffled the greatest scientific
minds of the past century, and why has it caused
them to rethink the origin of our universe?

New,
more powerful, telescopes have revealed
mysteries about our universe that have raised new
questions about the origin of life. Has science discovered God? But wait a minute! Hasn’t science proven we
don’t need God to explain the universe?

Lightning,
earthquakes and even babies used to be explained
as acts of God. But now we know better. What is it
about this discovery that is so fundamentally
different, and why has it stunned the scientific world? This discovery and what molecular biologists have
learned about the sophisticated coding within DNA
have many scientists now admitting that the
universe appears to be part of a grand design. One cosmologist put it this way:

“Many scientists,
when they admit their views, incline toward the
teleological or design argument.”[1]

Surprisingly, many scientists who are talking about
God have no religious belief whatsoever. [2] So, what are these stunning discoveries that have
scientists suddenly speaking of God? Three
revolutionary discoveries from the fields of
astronomy and molecular biology stand out:

1. The universe had a beginning

2. The universe is
just right for life

3. DNA coding reveals intelligence The statements leading scientists have made about
these discoveries may shock you. Let’s take a look.

One-Time Beginning Since the dawn of civilization man has gazed in
awe at the stars, wondering what they are and
how they got there. Although on a clear night the
unaided human eye can see about 6,000 stars,
Hubble and other powerful telescopes indicate
there are trillions of them clustered in over 100 billion galaxies. Our sun is like one grain of sand
amidst the world’s beaches. However, prior to the 20th century, the majority of
scientists believed our own Milky Way galaxy was
the entire universe, and that only about 100 million
stars existed.

Most scientists believed that our universe never
had a beginning. They believed mass, space and
energy had always existed. But in the early 20th century, astronomer Edwin
Hubble discovered the universe is expanding.
Rewinding the process mathematically, he
calculated that everything in the universe, including
matter, energy, space and even time itself, actually
had a beginning. Shockwaves rang loudly throughout the scientific
community. Many scientists, including Einstein,
reacted negatively. In what Einstein later called
“the biggest blunder of my life,” he fudged the
equations to avoid the implication of a beginning.

[3] Perhaps the most vocal adversary of a beginning to
the universe was British astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle,
who sarcastically nicknamed the creation event a
“big bang.” He stubbornly held to his steady
state theory that the universe has always existed.
So did Einstein and other scientists until the evidence for a beginning became overwhelming.
The “elephant in the room” implication of a
beginning is that something or Someone beyond
scientific investigation must have started it all. Finally, in 1992, COBE satellite experiments proved
that the universe really did have a one-time
beginning in an incredible flash of light and energy.

Although some scientists called it the moment of creation, most preferred referring to it as the
“big bang.” Astronomer Robert Jastrow tries to help us imagine
how it all began. “The picture suggests the
explosion of a cosmic hydrogen bomb. The instant
in which the cosmic bomb exploded marked the
birth of the Universe.” [5]

Everything from Nothing Science is unable to tell us what or who caused the
universe to begin. But some believe it clearly points
to a Creator. “British theorist, Edward Milne, wrote
a mathematical treatise on relativity which
concluded by saying,

‘As to the first cause of the
Universe, in the context of expansion, that is left for the reader to insert, but our picture is incomplete
without Him.’”

[6] Another British scientist, Edmund Whittaker
attributed the beginning of our universe to “Divine
will constituting Nature from nothingness.” [7]

Many scientists were struck by the parallel of a
one-time creation event from nothing with the
biblical creation account in Genesis 1:1. [8] Prior to this discovery, many scientists regarded the
biblical account of creation from nothing as
unscientific. Although he called himself an agnostic, Jastrow
was compelled by the evidence to admit, “Now
we see how the astronomical evidence leads to a
biblical view of the origin of the world.” [9]

Another agnostic, George Smoot, the Nobel Prize
winning scientist in charge of the COBE experiment,
also admits to the parallel. “There is no doubt that
a parallel exists between the big bang as an event
and the Christian notion of creation from
nothing.”[10] Scientists who used to scoff at the Bible as a book
of fairy tales, are now admitting that the biblical
concept of creation from nothing has been right all
along.

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. They began using words like, “Super-intellect,”
“Creator,” and even “Supreme Being” to
describe this designer. Let’s look at why.

Finely-Tuned for Life 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. Had the
expansion rate been slightly weaker, gravity
would have pulled all matter back into a “big
crunch.”

We’re not talking about merely a one or two
percent reduction in the universe’s expansion
rate. Stephen Hawking writes, “If the rate of
expansion one second after the big bang had been
smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand
million million, the universe would have re- collapsed before it ever reached its present
size.” [11]

On the flip side, if the expansion rate had been a
mere fraction greater than it was, galaxies, stars
and planets could never have formed, and we
wouldn’t be here.

And for life to exist, the conditions in our solar
system and planet also need to be just right. For
example, we all realize that without an
atmosphere of oxygen, none of us would be able to
breathe. And without oxygen, water couldn’t
exist. Without water there would be no rainfall for our crops. Other elements such as hydrogen,
nitrogen, sodium, carbon, calcium, and phosphorus
are also essential for life.

But that alone is not all that is needed for life to
exist. 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. [12]

Scientists who believe in God may have expected
such fine-tuning, but atheists and agnostics were
unable to explain the remarkable
“coincidences.” Theoretical physicist Stephen
Hawking, an agnostic, writes, “The remarkable
fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible
the development of life.”[13]

Accident or Miracle? But couldn’t this fine-tuning be attributed to
chance? After all, odds-makers know that even
long shots can eventually win at the racetrack.
And, against heavy odds, lotteries are eventually
won by someone. So, what are the odds against
human life existing by chance from a random explosion in cosmic history?

For human life to be possible from a big bang defies
the laws of probability. One astronomer calculates
the odds at less than 1 chance in a trillion trillion
trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion
trillion trillion trillion. [14] It would be far easier for a blind-folded person—in one try— to discover one
specially marked grain of sand out of all the
beaches of the world.

Another example of how unlikely it would be for a
random big bang to produce life is one person
winning over a thousand consecutive mega-million
dollar lotteries after purchasing only a single ticket
for each.

What would be your reaction to such news?
Impossible—unless it was fixed by someone
behind the scenes, which is what everyone would
think. And that is what many scientists are
concluding—Someone behind the scenes designed
and created the universe.

This new understanding of how miraculous human
life is in our universe led the agnostic astronomer
George Greenstein to ask, “Is it possible that
suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled
upon the scientific proof of the existence of a
Supreme Being?”[15]

However, as an agnostic, Greenstein maintains his
faith in science, rather than a Creator, to ultimately
explain our origins. [16]

Jastrow explains why some scientists are reluctant
to accept a transcendent Creator,

''There is a kind of religion in science; it is
the religion of a person who believes
there is order and harmony in the
Universe…This religious faith of the
scientist is violated by the discovery that
the world had a beginning under conditions in which the known laws of
physics are not valid, and as a product of
forces or circumstances we cannot
discover. When that happens, the
scientist has lost control. If he really
examined the implications, he would be traumatized.''

It is understandable why scientists like Greenstein
and Hawking seek other explanations rather than
attribute our finely-tuned universe to a Creator.
Hawking speculates that other unseen (and
unprovable) universes may exist, increasing the
odds that one of them (ours) is perfectly fine-tuned for life. However, since his proposal is speculative,
and outside of verification, it can hardly be called
“scientific.” Although he is also an agnostic,
British astrophysicist Paul Davies dismisses
Hawking’s idea as too speculative. He writes,
“Such a belief must rest on faith rather than observation.” [18]

Although Hawking continues leading the charge to
explore purely scientific explanations for our
origins, other scientists, including many agnostics,
have acknowledged what appears to be
overwhelming evidence for a Creator. Hoyle wrote,

“A common sense interpretation of the
facts suggests that a superintellect has
monkeyed with physics, as well as
chemistry and biology, and that there
are no blind forces worth speaking
about in nature.”

Although Einstein wasn’t religious, and didn’t
believe in a personal God, he called the genius
behind the universe “an intelligence of such
superiority that, compared with it, all the
systematic thinking and acting of human beings is
an utterly insignificant reflection.”[20] Atheist Christopher Hitchens, who spent much of
his life writing and debating against God, was most
perplexed by the fact that life couldn’t exist if
things were different by just “one degree or one
hair.” [21] Dav

ies acknowledges, There is for me powerful evidence that
there is something going on behind it all.
It seems as though somebody has fine-
tuned nature’s numbers to make the
Universe…. The impression of design is
overwhelming. [22]

DNA: The Language of Life Astronomy is not the only area where science has
seen evidence for design. Molecular biologists have
discovered intricately complex design in the
microscopic world of DNA.

In the past century,
scientists learned that a tiny molecule called DNA is
the “brains” behind each cell in our bodies as well as every other living thing. Yet the more they
discover about DNA, the more amazed they are at
the brilliance behind it.

Scientists who believe the material world is all that
exists (materialists), like Richard Dawkins, argue
DNA evolved by natural selection without a Creator.
Yet even most ardent evolutionists admit that the
origin of DNA’s intricate complexity is
unexplainable.

DNA’s intricate complexity caused its co-
discoverer, Francis Crick, to believe that it could
never have originated on earth naturally. Crick, an
evolutionist who believed life is too complex to
have originated on earth, and must have come
from outer space, wrote, ''An honest man, armed with all the
knowledge available to us now, could
only state that in some sense, the origin
of life appears at the moment to almost
be a miracle, so many are the conditions
which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going.''[23]

The coding behind DNA reveals such intelligence
that it staggers the imagination. 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.” [24]

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.''

Although Flew was not a Christian, he admitted that
the “software” behind DNA is far too complex to
have originated without a “designer.” The
discovery of the incredible intelligence behind DNA
has, in this former leading atheist’s words,
“provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design.''

Fingerprints of a Creator

Are scientists now convinced that a Creator has left
his “fingerprints” on the universe? Although many scientists are still bent on
squeezing God out of the universe, most recognize
the religious implications of these new discoveries.
In his book, The Grand Design, Stephen Hawking,
who doesn’t believe in a personal God, attempts
to explain why the universe doesn’t need God. Yet when faced with the evidence, even Hawking,
has also admitted, “There must be religious
overtones. But I think most scientists prefer to shy
away from the religious side of it.”[26]

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. [27]

A Personal Creator? If there is a superintelligent Creator, the question
arises, what is he like? Is he just some Force like in
Star Wars, or is he a personal Being like us? Since
we are personal and relational beings, wouldn’t
the one who created us also be personal and
relational? Many scientists like Arthur L. Schawlow, Professor
of Physics at Stanford University, winner of the
Nobel Prize in physics, believe that these new
discoveries provide compelling evidence for a
personal God. He writes, “It seems to me that
when confronted with the marvels of life and the universe, one must ask why and not just how. The
only possible answers are religious…. I find a need
for God in the universe and in my own life.”

[28] If God is personal and since he has given us the
ability to communicate, wouldn’t we expect him
to communicate with us and let us know why we
are here? As we have seen, science is unable to answer
questions about God and the purpose for life.
However, since the Bible was right about creation
from nothing, might it also be trustworthy
regarding God, life and purpose? Two thousand years ago a man set foot on our
planet who claimed to have the answer to life.
Although his time on earth was brief, his impact
changed the world, and is still felt today. His name
is Jesus Christ. The eyewitnesses to Jesus Christ tell us that he
continually demonstrated creative power over
nature’s laws.

They tell us he was wise, humble
and compassionate. He healed the lame, deaf and
blind. He stopped raging storms instantly, created
food for the hungry on the spot, turned water into wine at a wedding, and even raised the dead. And
they claimed after his brutal execution, he rose
from the dead.

They also tell us that Jesus Christ is the one who
flung the stars into space, fine-tuned our universe
and created DNA. Could he be the one of whom
Einstein unknowingly referred to as the
“superintelligence” behind the universe? Could
Jesus Christ be the one of whom Hoyle unknowingly referred to as having “monkeyed
with physics, chemistry and biology?”

Has the mystery of who was behind the big banbang the intelligence of DNA been revealed in the
following account from the New Testament?

Now Christ is the visible expression of
the invisible God. He existed before
creation began, for it was through him
that everything was made, whether
spiritual or material, seen or unseen.
Through him, and for him, also, were created power and dominion, ownership
and authority. In fact, every single thing
was created through, and for him….Life
from nothing began through him, and life
from the dead began through him, and
he is, therefore, justly called the Lord of all. [29]

Jesus spoke with authority about God’s love for
us and the reason he created us. He said he has a
plan for our lives, and that plan centers on a
relationship with himself. But for that relationship
to be possible,
Jesus had to die on the cross for our
sins. And it was necessary for him to rise from the dead so that we too could have life after death. [30]

If Jesus was the Creator, he certainly would have
the power over life and death. And those closest to

him claim they saw him alive after he died and was
buried for three days. Did Jesus Really Rise From The Dead? The apostle Paul tells us that life from the dead
began through Jesus Christ. The eyewitnesses to
Jesus Christ actually spoke and acted like they
believed he physically rose from the dead after his
crucifixion. If they were wrong then Christianity
has been founded upon a lie. But if they were right, such a miracle would substantiate all Jesus said
about God, himself, and us. But must we take the resurrection of Jesus Christ
by faith alone, or is there solid historical evidence?
Several skeptics began investigations into the
historical record to prove the resurrection account
false. What did they discover?

Copied from y-jesus.com/more/scc-science-christianity-compatible/7/

NevetsIbot:
Hey everyone! Atheist and ya'll who don't belive in the existence of God. I stumbled on this link just now and I agree with everything in it. The truth is, Science now agrees that God exists! How great is that?

Note : I don't own the blog so this is not a means to draw traffic into the site

Lemme copy and paste all in here.

Cc Lalasticala and Seun

Has Science Discovered God? Einstein didn’t believe it was possible. Stephen Hawking said it might be the greatest
scientific discovery of all time. What discovery has baffled the greatest scientific
minds of the past century, and why has it caused
them to rethink the origin of our universe?

New,
more powerful, telescopes have revealed
mysteries about our universe that have raised new
questions about the origin of life. Has science discovered God? But wait a minute! Hasn’t science proven we
don’t need God to explain the universe?

Lightning,
earthquakes and even babies used to be explained
as acts of God. But now we know better. What is it
about this discovery that is so fundamentally
different, and why has it stunned the scientific world? This discovery and what molecular biologists have
learned about the sophisticated coding within DNA
have many scientists now admitting that the
universe appears to be part of a grand design. One cosmologist put it this way:

“Many scientists,
when they admit their views, incline toward the
teleological or design argument.”[1]

Surprisingly, many scientists who are talking about
God have no religious belief whatsoever. [2] So, what are these stunning discoveries that have
scientists suddenly speaking of God? Three
revolutionary discoveries from the fields of
astronomy and molecular biology stand out:

1. The universe had a beginning

2. The universe is
just right for life

3. DNA coding reveals intelligence The statements leading scientists have made about
these discoveries may shock you. Let’s take a look.

I see you didn't add a link from a reliable source were scientist unequivocally agreed that this is a sign of God. Besides your post is old ass news even saw it on a watchtower magazine once, DNA coding doesn't prove a God exist but it might suggest an intelligent creator (not a deity to worship) maybe aliens

Olodo. Black men mentality. If scientists said it, it must be 100% accurate.

Lennycool:

I see you didn't add a link from a reliable source were scientist unequivocally agreed that this is a sign of God. Besides your post is old ass news even saw it on a watchtower magazine once, DNA coding doesn't prove a God exist but it might suggest an intelligent creator (not a deity to worship) maybe aliens

trapQ:
Olodo. Black men mentality. If scientists said it, it must be 100% accurate.

Lol. Madmen mentality, because it is in a thousand year old archaic and scientifically baseless book, it must be 100% accurate.

Olodo. I don't believe in Jesus because of the bible. Get well soon

Lennycool:

Lol. Madmen mentality, because it is in a thousand year old archaic and scientifically baseless book, it must be 100% accurate.

trapQ:
Olodo. I don't believe in Jesus because of the bible. Get well soon

Olodo. I don't believe in science because scientist just said it. I believe it because they gave proof and an analysis into how they got the result. What they proclaim can be tested and tried by any individual. So you see, unlike the bible.

I cnt but marvel at this.
But your link is somehow.. Why you dey mention Lalasticlala, is he an athei... Oh! You want him to push it to FP.. Iffa hear

Lennycool:

Lol. Madmen mentality, because it is in a thousand year old archaic and scientifically baseless book, it must be 100% accurate.

Typical atheistic comment

Theists please put all these your time and energy into researching about your bible (,fellow mans word) and proving that everything in it is true,and I can bet that it was Christian scientists or just some creationalists that made this writeup
**sighs**

Buharimustdie20:
Theists please put all these your time and energy into researching about your bible (,fellow mans word) and proving that everything in it is true,and I can bet that it was Christian scientists or just some creationalists that made this writeup
**sighs**

If that's not true,
then proof them wrong
else if,
rest your case.