I would like more of a scientific viewpoint, not a religious explanation please.
217624
The concept of spirits or ghosts is an archaic, lame explanation for unexplained noises (things that go bump in the night), likely an early attempt to satisfy the need to explain/understand the frightening unknowns of the universe, dating back to a time when most believed the earth was flat and the sun revolved around us.  While plausible scientifc answers have emerged, many feable minds stubbornly cling to the ancient mythological explanations passed down from generation to generation. It's fun to toy with the idea of ghosts, but those who truly believe reveal their stubborn ignorance.
37594
I looked at the reviews of the books you mentioned on amazon.com. From what I can tell, I am afraid they do not offer much in the way of solid technical arguments or new discussions or reasons that creationism or a young earth hypothesis must be chosen over the current dominant accepted theories. The "experts" in the book "In Six Days" offer little that has not been dismissed before as specious arguments. Unfortunately, although these 50 gentlemen have PhDs, they are offering opinions in areas well outside their areas of expertise, in most cases. Many of arguments violate well-known scientific principles and laws.  \n\nI do applaud the creationists for trying to compile books that state their arguments and reasoning. We definitely need more of these, and we need to approach this subject with more intellectual honesty and integrity than has been evidenced in the past. \n\nI myself feel I could write a far more compelling book supporting faith that would be far more careful, if I was so inclined. I feel more of a general awe of creation, somewhat similar to that of Einstein, or Thomas Jefferson, or Newton. \n\nIt is disappointing and disconcerting that so far, these kinds of products produced by the religious community have hurt more than they have helped, have discredited those of religious faith and cast them in a bad light. They have tended to lend support for the opposite point of view, and have not succeeded as intended I am sorry to say.\n\n- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - \n\nAddendum:\n\nYes I am being honest. I have often been struck by some of the most amazing structures in science when I have been doing scientific investigations or learning about science. Unfortunately, I did not keep notes. I think that this is where religious people should direct their attention if they want to grasp the incredible majesty of creation. And it has the advantage that it is beautiful in structure, and unassailable, and compltely scientifically rigorous. \n\nHowever, I am not sure how many people of faith want to undertake a 15+ year journey into abstruse mathematics and physics, or are willing to approach it with a completely open mind. In fact, what I would ask is, if one is absolutely sure of one's faith, then would it not make sense to allow science to continue to unravel the mysteries of nature? After all, if you are positive what the conclusion will be, let them bolster your arguments with facts. If I am not mistaken, this has been the Vatican's approach for some decades.
189187
I believe it is a scientific matter...my opinion
252876
not in bible\nit is in palmistry...a science to interpret lines\ncheers
128656
To be honest it is not about believing it or not it is about thinking outside of what we have always been told.  More about possibilities.
654793
Make more sense, please.
454271
You can teach that - just don't pass it off as science (its like pushing your pamphlets under the door), put it in a religious instruction class.
119239
Try reading Dawkins: "The blind Watchmaker".  It's a very good appreciation of the current state of evolutionary theory.\n\nIt may be that there are some inconsistencies in the theory, but the main mechanisms and proofs are well understood and accepted by most scientists.\n\nCertainly the principles are such that they should be taught in schools to children.\n\nWe shouldn't get confused between matters of faith and scientific fact.  At one time the catholic Church improsoned Gallileo for suggesting that the Earth was not at the centre of the universe.
579107
Psychic, rather than physics? Don´t.....\n\nBut if you must, start here:\n\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parapsychology
397145
Wrote a few points in this group post I have.  I essentially argue for both sides on theological, philisophical, and practical point of view.  I don't think scientific point of view helps much.  Scientists are still looking for the 'gay' gene, and there are still no definite proof of homosexuality, in humans, that is.\n\n\nXR
22864
Be sure you understand the meaning of the term Atheist.  Atheists generally denouonce the existance of any type of superior diety.  I myself am Agnostic, I am comfortable with the idea that I'm not sure what happened, what will happen, why things are.  I tend to follow the current scientific theories (note the term theory).  Science is continually improving upon itself, realizing that very few things can be proven as fact.  Science often corrects previous assumptions of many things, a few hundred years ago, the world was flat, and the Earth was the center of the universe...tell someone that now and youll get looked at like you didnt make it through Kindergarten.  My opinion on the beginning of time, the "first" human and what not tends to follow the theroy of evolution as it can be demonstrated in everday life, however through out my travels toplaces that i would rather not have gone, I have fouond little evidence for an all powerful and caring god as I watched my friend burn alive while his wife, daughter, and future son were waiting his return home in less than one month.  Sorry.....those are some of my thoughts, I am not a violent man, and I live a very moral life, however, I don't believe in God....but on the same hand, I would be open to believe if I had ever seen any evidence of him/her, I firmly accept the fact that I don't know.
146694
LOL! That is a weird theory, but I know what you mean. It is a joke to think people would take a book as more proof than scientific facts. And a god that is constantly destroying his own creation for political reasons is even more absurd.
363704
NO NO NO!!!\n\nThis is about science and the lack of divine intervention.  The reason the planet seems so perfectly balanced is because it had 4.6 Billion years to get here.  A lot can happen in the trial-and-error game in that amount of time.  The earth evolves, life evolves, the only thing that remains stagnent and vestigial is theism.\n\nWhat you proposed is non-science, it is not a testable hypothesis.  Evolution is a tried and true, uber-tested and passed law of life.\n\nEvery fossil, every observation in biology points to evolution. There is nothing that goes against it or points to a different way to scientifically explain modern diversity. There is not one fossil or one piece of DNA that does NOT point to evolution. It would be hard NOT to see the concrete evidence, and only those blinded by faith can do this.\n\nEvolution is 100% world-wide accepted fact, including the evolution of man.\n\nThere is ZERO evidence for a higher being causing anything. This is why people who are religious need faith, you can't see or study the actions of a deity, by definition. Evolution has ZERO faith and ALL evidence.\n\nScientists (real ones) have been studying and supporting evolution for over 150 years, and still nothing has pointed to creationism. There is clear links and transitional forms between everything in the fossil record to the Class-Family level, if not Genus-Species level. And this includes humans, which there are several 'missing links' which are well described and studied, people just choose to ignore this. Sure, there are still things we don't know, but that's why science is not stagnent and dead. We learn more every day, that's what happens when you keep an open mind and follow the scientific method.\n\nThere are some areas of evolution in which all of the pieces have not been found in the fossil record, but there is no counter theory that has even ONE piece of evidence that can not easily be explained by evolution.\n\nLet me turn the question around, if Creationism was correct and science could definitively prove Creationism (and thus the existence of God), why would they not? That would be the greatest scientific discovery in the history of the world. No one would pass that up to maintain the 'status quo'. There is no conspiracy to hide creation evidence. Anyone who knows real scientists knows they are glory-mongers first. They love to prove others wrong to enhance their own standing. And if any scientist could prove Creation/God, it would've been done a long time ago.\n\nGo to a museum, take a class in biology, go to reputable sites on the Internet (like AAAS: http://www.aaas.org/news/press_room/evolution or http://www.talkorigins.org ) and find out for yourself.
15865
Mere Christianity by CS Lewis may give you a few ideas,he seems to break it down well,and doesnt really leave many stones unturned in his explanations.
349672
religion maybe......but not spiritual thinking.
564934
its an art, not a science.  They can't tell you specifics but ideas.
501783
Yes. See link. \nYou don't need help with science. \nYou need help with using the internet. \nUse of google and wikipedia is highly beneficial if looking for information.