TT, you seem like a scientific kinda' guy.......you even quoted one of my favorite scientists. Here's another quote from Sir Albert Einstein I'm sure you're familiar with:

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind". Albert Einstein


FACT:
 There is no scientific method to prove GOD exists.

But that's not exactly a Revelation.......for a scientific mind. Science is the study of the natural world......of nature. Questions about God are questions about whether there is anything other than nature. Doesn't make any sense to go to science...... the study of nature.......to find out if there is anything other than nature. It'd be like going to a Chevrolet Shop Manual.......seeing only references to Chevrolet's, and claiming there is no proof Ford's exist.

Some folks (perhaps you?) believe science is the Ultimate Test. BUT......you know what the first victim of this way of thinking is? Science. In order to prove anything.......science has to make certain assumptions that cannot be proved scientifically. Here they are: 

Rationality - that our thinking processes are basically reliable. (This assumption is needed in every area of life - even to discuss rationality)

Orderliness - that there is an order to be discovered in nature. (otherwise why do science at all?)
Intelligibility - that our minds are able to discover this order.

Uniformity - that doing exactly the same experiment twice gives the same results. (The scientific enterprise would be impossible without the assumption that there is a general uniformity in nature.)

Not even these basic rules, which are absolutely necessary for science, can be proven scientifically. Any belief that science is the final court of appeal kinda' shoots itself in the foot..........wouldn't you say?

Couple more "Scientific" quotes for you.........

'Physical laws came into being because there is a Creator who made them.' Prof. Sir Ghillean Prance, Director of Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew

'Science is dealing with things that are given ... awe, wonder and humility before the facts are essential if man is to be in harmony with both his environment and his creator.' Sir John Houghton, Former Director General, Meteorological Office

And finally, one of my favorites............

"My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind."  ~ Sir Albert Einstein

That Al quote is out of context.  Bible thumpers seem to use that quote often.
Albert Einstein was an atheist all the way.
Here are a few quotes you may have missed.

"The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this."

Einstein was also taught Judaism on the side while attending Catholic school as a youth.  Here is what he had to say 'bout the chosen people.

"For me the Jewish religion like all others is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions. And the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong and with whose mentality I have a deep affinity have no different quality for me than all other people. As far as my experience goes, they are no better than other human groups, although they are protected from the worst cancers by a lack of power. Otherwise I cannot see anything 'chosen' about them."

Yeah, I love science.  It's great stuff! 
I'll stick with science dang near every time. 
Folks outta understand some of it more.

Dawkins discussing Als recently auctioned letters

From the Article:
"It is clear for example that he had respect for the religious values enshrined within Judaic and Christian traditions ... but what he understood by religion was something far more subtle than what is usually meant by the word in popular discussion."

Despite his categorical rejection of conventional religion, Brooke said that Einstein became angry when his views were appropriated by evangelists for atheism.



Sir Albert may not have embraced conventional religion........but that's not the same thing as rejecting the notion of the Supreme Being. Which GOD is.

Including scientists, since they are so frequently wrong.

Have you noticed TT hasn't said Diddly Smoe about the Foreknowledge link? I've linked it again just in case TT is getting old and senile and just missed the link the first time.

Reminds me of another poster that used to hang out here. When he was proven wrong - which was often, he ignored you or started calling names.

I've noticed that Bible thumper is coming up quite often in this thread as of late.

Coinky-dinky?

Probably. But who knows for sure....

Maybe science has the answer to this riddle.

Yeah, I didn't neglect your post.  Time is/was short.

Your foreknowledge information IS interesting.  I will look at that further.  It's about time someone came up with something.
I already have much to reply there but want to learn more in that area before I start typing away.

It is not however evidence of how god is possible as Bimmer asked.
This is not my entire reply on that subject by any means, but what about Nostradamus or Edgar Cayce for example? 

Also wanted to reply to Tex on the scientific method thing.
Not sure if Tex may have worded wrong or not but....
The scientific method can be applied to ANYTHING.  Including god(s).
It can be applied to Santa Claus (busted) or the Easter Bunny (busted) or Rolex watchmakers (confirmed) or anything else. 
God(s) too.
The scientific method can prove god exists if it had something observable etc. 
It cannot prove that something does not exist.
No one can prove that god does not exist.  No one can prove that Santa Claus does not exist. 
Just like there is no evidence for science to prove santa, they are stuck with nothing to work with on the divine front.

If you are asking science to go with the bible and nothing else, it ain't gonna work. 

Scientific method refers to the body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. It is based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.^[1] A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.^[2]

I also want to reply briefly to the CMA on how science can sometimes tell you opposite things.  That point was not missed and is quite valid.
This is true occasionally and I do find that to be sad.  It is not the norm for folks with brains in the science community, but I see it enough.
One day, vitamins are good for you and the next, they are not.  There are other things like that I'm sure you can recall.
Nowadays, a slick "study" can prove almost anything.  It is still the peer review process that weeds out the bad stuff eventually.

Yeah, science is supposed to be about what is and not what isn't.

Please peek at this About.com entry for Albert Einstein Quotations.  Albert Einstein on Science, God, and Religion.
Al was a really smart guy as I'm sure you will agree.
I would ask that you at least look at #6.  We may come to some kind of reconciliation there?

So, one could say, science is an evolutionary process.

Hey TT, I'm glad you find the Foreknowledge link interesting.

As for your comments that somebody finally came up with something, well I could probably make a good case that I have come up with something prior to this, but much of it has to be taken on faith, which you evidently have a problem doing.

That's fine I reckon.

But the entire discussion in this thread, the Rolex thread and the I Pray to Jesus thread has been centered around the Bible and evolution.

The Bible is not exactly something I would classify as empty evidence.

Edgar Cayce and Nostrodamus have one important trait in common. Their predictions were vague and did not always come true.

A true prophet does not make predictions that do not come to pass nor are vague in nature. It is one of the tests the Bible lays out to discern the difference between true and false prophets.

Been sitting silent for a while now.  The bottom line of this whole post is that science cannot prove or disporve the existance of a superior creator being.  Taking the Christian God as and example becuase it is the only God I know.   The God described says certain things about himself.
His name "I am"  and further discussion in that he has no end and neither has had a beginning.  He has always been.  While it may be easy to trivialize this by declaring "You can't say God did it just because you don't know" it is a simple characteristic of God.  Can science disprove that there is something that has always existied that is not bound by our time bound thinking?

Another thing the Christian God says about Himself is that he is beyond the ability of man to understand.  It is said that God is infinite.  Scientifically quantify infinite.  It cannot be done.  We might be able to come up with a formula that infinitely produced a sequential numer...but there is no end.  So in that guise  it is impossible for science to define the existance of God by any time based reasoning either in terms of thousands or even billions of years.

As the title of this thread has eluded to "Made by God" , what I need to know from those that believe science and religion are incompatible ( which they cannot be if God exists) is what is the proof that you need scientifically to exclude the possibility that God exists?  What is the proof and on the flip side what is the proof you need to absolutely prove that God exists?  Does it need to be empiracle?  What does empiracle evidence really mean, because many of us from the pro-creationist perspective think that what evolutionists keep throwing up as empiracle evidence has a great deal of conjecture and willful interpretation (leaps of faith) involved even though they at the same time scof