One of my passions in life is reading. As I sit here writing this, I have a small bookcase within arm’s reach of my chair containing over 70 books ranging in subject matter from astronomy, physics and natural sciences to philosophy and religion including seven different translations of the Bible. In my office, I have over 2,500 books on many topics. I’ve read at least 85% of them… some of them several times. I’ve read the Koran cover to cover, and limited samplings of the Book of Mormon and other world religions.

 

I tend to prefer nonfiction. I’m a science junkie. I’ve loved science since grade school. I was very blessed to score among the top 1/10th of 1% of all science students in the U.S. and receive a national science award in high school. I own over 150 books of science including authors such as; Stephen Hawking, Carl Sagan, Albert Einstein, Isaac Newton, Henry Morris and Michael Behe. I subscribe to Discover, Scientific American, National Geographic, Popular Science, and Answers Magazines. I actually read them, and for the most part understand what I read. Of these, only Answers has a “Creationism” or “Intelligent Design” perspective.

 

Now, please don’t misunderstand, I’m not bragging or suggesting that I’m any kind of authority on anything necessarily, just that I’m not what you would typically identify as uninformed or naïve on matters of science.

 

The thing that strikes me most—the absolute bottom line—is the fact that we all have the same basic set of facts, the same evidence. It’s how we interpret the evidence that fuels our different worldviews. Whether they intend to do so or not, Scientists approach the evidence with their own predispositions, biases, beliefs and agenda. They interpret the evidence to fit their worldview. In such cases it often becomes a logical tautology or circular reasoning.

 

I choose to believe, “In the beginning God” whereas, others choose to believe what amounts to, “In the beginning… nothing.” There are many who attempt to suggest many shades and nuances in between, but when it comes right down to it, it has to be one or the other. Regardless of how you define or identify God, He either “is” or “isn’t”.

 

If God is, He is fully capable of creating the entirety of what we see, know and understand in a matter of seconds… much less days or years or millennia.

 

I am investing my eternal destiny in my belief that “God is.” This is far from a blind faith, but a well studied and reasoned faith.

 

Thank you for this well thought out post. I do not claim to have the science background that you have but I have seen the evidence. I choose to also believe "in the beginning God . . ." If others choose to believe otherwise that is fine. However, to be called arrogant because I don't join them lock step with their beliefs is like the pot calling the kettle black. Thanks again for the much appreciated post from someone in the "know.":thumb:

You can try to say one can have faith in one or the other, but its completely judgemental and arrogant of you in a roundabout way.... There's no reason there can't be belief in both..

 

And a BS isn't a Biology Degree, and my professors are far from secularists, and they accept evolution as a fact, which it is...

 

That's a little like the pot calling the kettle black. Believe as you wish. You have the freedom to do so. However, the last time I looked I have that same freedom---even if I believe differently than you.

I also believe, "in the beginning, God," but that doesn't mean that I cannot, therefore, believe in the Big Bang Theory or Evolution.

I was reading some of my old comic books last night and found it interesting that in one of the Superman comic books that had the story of Kryptonian Man, the point was made that the fall of Krypton came about as they made science their religion. Any and everything could be answered by science and if science couldn't support it, it wasn't worth believing in.

 

Thought it was interesting that I sat and read that story in "daddy's library" last night.

I also believe, "in the beginning, God," but that doesn't mean that I cannot, therefore, believe in the Big Bang Theory or Evolution.

The baffling beauty of God for many is the fact that He will allow you to believe in whatever you want to believe.

 

You can try to say one can have faith in one or the other, but its completely judgemental and arrogant of you in a roundabout way.... There's no reason there can't be belief in both..

 

And a BS isn't a Biology Degree, and my professors are far from secularists, and they accept evolution as a fact, which it is...

The only "fact" of evolution is the fact that we have observed adaptation within species to better suit their environments. ( We have never uncovered conclusive “proof” of one species morphing into another… if we had, we would not still be having this debate… it would be a “fact.” Merely asserting it is a fact 100 billion times does nothing to prove it.) Ironically, this adaptation also fits the Creation model of origins. Molecules-to-Man evolution is a clever theory, but cannot possibly be proven as a fact, no matter how adamantly its adherents "believe" its veracity.

The baffling beauty of God for many is the fact that He will allow you to believe in whatever you want to believe.

 

.

 

I have a sign in my classroom.

 

You get to choose your actions, you don't get to choose the consequences to those actions.

I also believe, "in the beginning, God," but that doesn't mean that I cannot, therefore, believe in the Big Bang Theory or Evolution.

 

It is tough to argue against evolution in terms of natural selection, but the Big Bang Theory requires an awful lot of faith, in my opinion. I really can't imagine where the matter that exploded in the Big Bang came from. Either one must believe that matter always existed or that it formed from nothingness. I find no logic in either conclusion.

It is tough to argue against evolution in terms of natural selection, but the Big Bang Theory requires an awful lot of faith, in my opinion. I really can't imagine where the matter that exploded in the Big Bang came from. Either one must believe that matter always existed or that it formed from nothingness. I find no logic in either conclusion.

 

See, that is where I have no trouble at all. Granted, this is romaticized, but I envision a grain of sand in the palm of God's hand...and from that, and through Him, the Big Bang occurred.

See, that is where I have no trouble at all. Granted, this is romaticized, but I envision a grain of sand in the palm of God's hand...and from that, and through Him, the Big Bang occurred.

I'm okay with that too. It doesn't reflect negatively on either God or the theory. In fact, its a quite magnificent resolution.

See, that is where I have no trouble at all. Granted, this is romaticized, but I envision a grain of sand in the palm of God's hand...and from that, and through Him, the Big Bang occurred.

 

Well yeah, if you let God do it, it's easy.:lol:

 

I was referring to the theory were nature did all by herself.

The Big Bang is was actually coined by a reporter and isn't a good way of describing the event. The BB actually explains everything that happened a microsecond after the moment of creation, which scientists will readily tell you is still a mystery. Some scientists hypothesize that the BB happened after a previous universe experienced a collapse. Others hypothesize that matter came shooting out of a white hole after being sucked into a black hole in another universe. Others challenge the current BB theory altogether in favor of other theories.

 

I'm am of the opinion that God caused the BB, but I can't test that. Now I am also of the opinion that God also uses evolution, astronomy, and science in general to show how much more He knows about stuff than we do. But he gave us a brain so why should we not use it?

I use my brain everyday. Mostly in his word. That is where I learn how everything was created and how it will be destroyed.

It is a theory . . . :thumb:

 

So is gravity...

The Big Bang is was actually coined by a reporter and isn't a good way of describing the event. The BB actually explains everything that happened a microsecond after the moment of creation, which scientists will readily tell you is still a mystery. Some scientists hypothesize that the BB happened after a previous universe experienced a collapse. Others hypothesize that matter came shooting out of a white hole after being sucked into a black hole in another universe. Others challenge the current BB theory altogether in favor of other theories.

I understand that you believe in God, so my comments are not directed at you, but at the actual "theories" you so conveniently summarize. (That's a compliment, not some veiled shot... :lol: )

 

There is not one theory of universal origins that conforms or operates in accordance with the natural laws as we currently understand them. There is no way the total mass of the universe could possibly separate to form its present degree of order without in some way suspending or operating outside of the natural laws of gravitation and thermodynamics.

 

By known natural laws alone, all the stuff of the universe, once compressed could never "naturally" escape the crushing pull of its own gravitation. It would forever remain the most massive black hole imaginable.

 

Even if we set aside the mystery of where the "stuff" came from to begin with, we still cannot get from point A to today without some type of "supernatural" process or intervention.

 

For atheistic or even agnostic scientists to scoff at those who believe in God for having faith in something science cannot prove, only to turn around and assert that we should believe in a Big Bang that is even more impossible to prove by natural laws is truly absurd. It takes as much or more "faith" to believe their theory than it does to simply believe the God of the Bible.

 

We just don't get order out of disorder without some type of intelligent intervention.

I understand that you believe in God, so my comments are not directed at you, but at the actual "theories" you so conveniently summarize. (That's a compliment, not some veiled shot... :lol: )

 

There is not one theory of universal origins that conforms or operates in accordance with the natural laws as we currently understand them. There is no way the total mass of the universe could possibly separate to form its present degree of order without in some way suspending or operating outside of the natural laws of gravitation and thermodynamics.

 

By known natural laws alone, all the stuff of the universe, once compressed could never "naturally" escape the crushing pull of its own gravitation. It would forever remain the most massive black hole imaginable.

 

Even if we set aside the mystery of where the "stuff" came from to begin with, we still cannot get from point A to today without some type of "supernatural" process or intervention.

 

For atheistic or even agnostic scientists to scoff at those who believe in God for having faith in something science cannot prove, only to turn around and assert that we should believe in a Big Bang that is even more impossible to prove by natural laws is truly absurd. It takes as much or more "faith" to believe their theory than it does to simply believe the God of the Bible.

 

We just don't get order out of disorder without some type of intelligent intervention.

 

 

:thumb: :thumb: :thumb: