Ah, and that is where your logic breaks down. I know that there are things I (or anyone) will never know. All the scientific knowledge you have has come, not from your own experimentation, but your faith in the word of others. We have faith in the word of others as well -- intelligent, responsible, and respectable people.

 

Really? You know for sure that the writers of the Gospels were intelligent, responsible, and respectable?

 

Or are you talking about the ever respectable pastors and ministers that interpret the writings of those Gospel writers who themselves would have had to been intelligent, responsible, and respectable. Oh, and not to mention, they would have had to not be full of it when they were writing.

 

The more I learn about science, the more I realize that there has to be a God. Science does not serve to disprove divine creation. On the contrary, science is a testament to the wonder of creation.

 

I do not see that as an answer at all. You are simply throwing words together and hiding him behind warm fuzzies. "Science must truly be the work of a creator" is not a scientific, logical debate. That is hiding behind faith and refusing to acknowledge.

That is hiding behind faith and refusing to acknowledge.

 

Acknowledge what? Science doesn't disprove God.

:lol: Excuse me. I just do not see refusing to believe that our creator would consider himself all loving yet be capable of allowing us to burn and be tormented for eternity as being desperate. I do not see refusing to believe that a book full of contradictions and unscientfic information which was written by human beings is the undebatable word of God to be desperate. I do not see that believing that Christians are the only group in the world to have their religion right...and any opposing view point is a desperate refusal...to be desperate.

See, you have locked yourself into a corner, refusing to believe anything that seems too scary.

 

For the record, I don't hold the belief that my way of seeking God is the only way...or necessarily the right way. It's just, my way. Neither am I a literalist when it comes to the Bible. But I do have the good sense to admit that I just don't know.

I do not see that as an answer at all. You are simply throwing words together and hiding him behind warm fuzzies. "Science must truly be the work of a creator" is not a scientific, logical debate. That is hiding behind faith and refusing to acknowledge.

Is that your best rhetorical argument? :lol: :lol:

 

Think what you will. You seem to fear faith. Otherwise you would not be so willing to attack it without any basis in knowledge, fact, or reason.

Acknowledge what? Science doesn't disprove God.

Of course not. :thumb:

Something tells me Ben would be firmly in my camp on this one. I admit my own "ignorance" I am humble enough to admit that I do not know and will never have any way of knowing.

 

Having steadfast "faith" with closed eyes to any other ideas is not having knowledge of your own igorance, Bird.

I have a hard time believing “Ben” would be unable to see that the issue here isn’t the Christian evidence versus the Scientific evidence. We all have the exact same evidence. It’s how we interpret the evidence. Science can neither prove nor disprove God. A belief in God requires no more faith, no more evidence than the belief that God does not exist.

 

It takes faith to believe either way. :thumb:

The more I learn about science, the more I realize that there has to be a God. Science does not serve to disprove divine creation. On the contrary, science is a testament to the wonder of creation.

 

Wonderfully said. As a chemistry, astronomy and physics teacher, I agree entirely.

Science can't even prove its own theories. Take the Big Bang theory. It just a hypothesis on what scientists think happened to create the universe. Even now, they're dealing with what happened before the Big Bang and what was outside of the universe if the universe is constantly expanding.

Science can't even prove its own theories. Take the Big Bang theory. It just a hypothesis on what scientists think happened to create the universe. Even now, they're dealing with what happened before the Big Bang and what was outside of the universe if the universe is constantly expanding.

No theory in Science is ever meant to be proven. If it is proven, it isn't Science anymore. But if it is a theory, that means that enough evidence has been found and presented to uphold the tenents of the theory, and yes the Big Bang does fit into that mold.

No theory in Science is ever meant to be proven. If it is proven, it isn't Science anymore. But if it is a theory, that means that enough evidence has been found and presented to uphold the tenents of the theory, and yes the Big Bang does fit into that mold.

 

 

Ironically, it is scientists themselves who determined if enough evidence has been found and whether the evidence is accurate.

 

And the same people who don't believe Christians when I say that the evidence of God to me, is Him working in my life everyday and I can see the results of Him working.

 

They can hold up their own evidence but tear down others who try to do the same.

 

What is the evidence that has been found for the Big Bang? For evolution that we came from a puddle of goo?

Ironically, it is scientists themselves who determined if enough evidence has been found and whether the evidence is accurate.

 

And the same people who don't believe Christians when I say that the evidence of God to me, is Him working in my life everyday and I can see the results of Him working.

 

They can hold up their own evidence but tear down others who try to do the same.

 

What is the evidence that has been found for the Big Bang? For evolution that we came from a puddle of goo?

 

There is plenty of evidence for the Big Bang. All galaxies are moving apart from a center point, and this can be tested using dopplar effect and red-shift among other things. As of yet we can't test what happened before the big bang and so there are a number of hypotheses on the matter. Until these are reliably testable the the scientific community will debate on the matter.

 

As far as puddle of goo. Science has shown through genetic research that evolution from common ancestors is valid. If you mean to say that we came from a puddle of goo and then lightning struck it and simple lifeforms came into being, that's not evolution it's abiogenesis, they are two totally different things.

 

There are all kinds of theories out there that the religious community supports without question. No one rejects atomic or gravitational theory, and radioactive decay is only denied by some Christians when it doesn't give the answers they want. In science, if something doesn't give you the answers you want, you continue testing until you find the right answer. When technology and knowledge show your right answer to be only half right, you continue testing it.

There is plenty of evidence for the Big Bang. All galaxies are moving apart from a center point, and this can be tested using dopplar effect and red-shift among other things. As of yet we can't test what happened before the big bang and so there are a number of hypotheses on the matter. Until these are reliably testable the the scientific community will debate on the matter.

 

As far as puddle of goo. Science has shown through genetic research that evolution from common ancestors is valid. If you mean to say that we came from a puddle of goo and then lightning struck it and simple lifeforms came into being, that's not evolution it's abiogenesis, they are two totally different things.

 

There are all kinds of theories out there that the religious community supports without question. No one rejects atomic or gravitational theory, and radioactive decay is only denied by some Christians when it doesn't give the answers they want. In science, if something doesn't give you the answers you want, you continue testing until you find the right answer. When technology and knowledge show your right answer to be only half right, you continue testing it.

On the bolded, I will assume that you didn't mean what you said. If the answers don't give you what you WANT, you keep testing cause you didn't like the answers???

 

Also, they only do that in things they WANT to believe. Cause they have rejected Creationism instead of retesting for it.

 

So, the ONLY evidence of big bang is that things are moving away from each other. That doesn't seem like solid evidence at all.

 

And I would argue that science as we know it presently may show one thing when in actuality the truth may be something different. Throughout history, science has believed and taught one thing only to be proven wrong in later decades and centuries.

Ironically, it is scientists themselves who determined if enough evidence has been found and whether the evidence is accurate.

 

And the same people who don't believe Christians when I say that the evidence of God to me, is Him working in my life everyday and I can see the results of Him working.

 

They can hold up their own evidence but tear down others who try to do the same.

 

What is the evidence that has been found for the Big Bang? For evolution that we came from a puddle of goo?

 

But the evidence for how God works in our lives is not empirical. It's not quantifiable. I know that God has been good to me, but I cant test to see if it's there or not. I can't say, "I make $XX,XXX a year, then God is good to me to the n'th degree." But I will know it for myself. Many Scientists appear to "tear down" evidence because that evidence is not scientific. And that is the biggest problem with teaching Intelligent Design or Creation Science in classrooms.

 

As far as evidence for the Big Bang, once again, I am not an expert, but all evidence for expanding and contracting Universes that has been observed, fits the tenets of the Bigh Bang theory. The Theory basically states that matter condensed and exploded, then expanded to create the universe...it does not state what was there before. But the Theory of Relativity (Einstien), Hubbles Law, and many other Mathmatical models confirm tenents of the theory of Expansion by Big Bang. Scientists have been able to work backwards to a certian point, and if they are able to find evidence before that point, the Big Bang Theory will be able to be better confirmed, or discarded.

 

Darwins theory of Evolution by Natural selection does not state we came from a puddle of goo, nor does it state that Human beings descend from Monkeys, wich is a common misconception. We have common ancestors, which looking a the human genome, the science of genetics, and bioligical science, confirms the Theory of Natural Selection.

Throughout most of western history science did what the church told it to. Copernicus came out with the idea through observation that the Earth was not the center of the universe. The church threatened to kill him if he did not take back his theory. Medicine suffered b/c the church wouldn't let people study the human body.

Here's a breakdown of science and how it works.

 

Maybe I should have worded it better. In science if your testing doesn't show your hypothesis to be correct you check and recheck your tests. Are you doing the experiments in a way that would best lead you to the right answer? If not you look at the results you have. Is part of your hypothesis reliably testable and the other part not? Why? Science is a lot of trial and error but most of the things taught in textbooks is testable and true over a long period of time.

 

A lot of these "creation scientists" like Hamm are great at rejecting things that don't give them the answers they want. Case in point is Carbon 14. Hamm says it doesn't work when it comes to dating something over 6,000 years old b/c it proves he's wrong. But he has no trouble using C-14 testing to give ages for things like biblical texts or things of that nature. I remember him using that in the seminar I heard him give and me and one other person there were the only ones to notice the contradiction.

Ah, and that is where your logic breaks down. I know that there are things I (or anyone) will never know. All the scientific knowledge you have has come, not from your own experimentation, but your faith in the word of others. We have faith in the word of others as well -- intelligent, responsible, and respectable people.

 

The more I learn about science, the more I realize that there has to be a God. Science does not serve to disprove divine creation. On the contrary, science is a testament to the wonder of creation.

 

Beautiful post!:dancingpa