God is not real!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

lol!! it is beautiful example

Thanks!

Oh, and thanks for best response too.

You're correct when you say science pertains to nature, but I hope you realize that "supernatural" is not synonymous with "fake." Psychic abilities are considered supernatural even today, partly because they're not common, but mostly (I suspect) because science doesn't offer an explanation. Nevertheless, plenty of people have such abilities. I know because I'm one of them, although my abilities are poorly developed, and what I see doesn't seem to mean much.

It's true we cannot at present prove or disprove the existence of God with science. We also cannot prove at present that the first cells were developed with intelligent intervention, although microbiology does evidence this. Darwin lived in a time when microscopy was primitive, and cells looked like simple "blobs." Yet he had the foresight way back then to say, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." Darwin's theory was called "natural selection."

Since his time, microscopy has advanced tremendously, and we can see just how much more complex a single cell is than just a little "blob." The modern creationist's foremost argument in hindsight is called "irreducible complexity." While modern Darwinian evolutionists have made all manner of slanderous attacks against creationists (I am just a theist, not a creationist, nor even a Christian), not one of them has ever been able to offer up a direct refutation.

Their other theory is mutation, which to this day is nothing but speculation. There is indeed such a thing as mutation, but all instances ever observed were harmful, if not fatal. Such accidents do not improve things, but worsen them. Richard Dawkins was duped in 1997 to allow some creationists into his home. He realized what was going on when they asked him to "give an example of a genetic mutation or an evolutionary process which can be seen to increase the information in the genome." He paused for a moment before asking them to stop the camera: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaKryi3605g

He was apparently ready to kick them out at this point, but they pleaded with him, and he gave a pitiful answer on camera before writing an essay months later that still did not address the question: http://www.skeptics.com.au/articles/dawkins.htm Still, creationists and other theists are not fooled: http://www.trueorigin.org/dawkinfo.asp Dawkins may or may not truly believe there is no Creative Intelligence, but he cannot come close to proving it or even evidencing it. On the other hand, while creationists cannot prove the existence of God, they have plenty of evidence to suggest that life could not exist without some manner of Intelligence to precede them.

Too bad the OP says that science has "proved" there is no God; it makes a person look rather silly when people find out they are going by what someone else told them, and nothing more. That's a whole lot of exclamation points for nothing.