I see God as much as the natural as the sun, the stars or the sky.

I see God as much as the natural as the trees out my windown, the rain falling from the sky or the makeup of the human eye.

 

Science has researched the connections between twins. Is that natural, supranatural or supernatural when a twin can feel something negatively happening to their twin while they are in different coasts?

 

NKYSPORTS, your assumption is that it cannot be proven. How can you say without a doubt that there will NEVER be any true scientific proof?

 

I think science can more explain God than not. You look at how an eye works and it SCREAMS of a God who had a purpose and plan for the eye. NOT that it was an accident.

 

You can apply your example to anything in life and say it is because of God. That is not scientific proof of his existence (although I agree that it works because of God's plan).

 

I do not feel that you can study and find a factual and scientific proof of the existence of God. I feel that it is something that you must have faith in, in order to believe it.

 

As for the twins thing, that doesn't have anything to do with what I'm talking about. I'm strictly speaking of using science to prove that God exists.

I see God as much as the natural as the sun, the stars or the sky.

I see God as much as the natural as the trees out my windown, the rain falling from the sky or the makeup of the human eye.

 

Science has researched the connections between twins. Is that natural, supranatural or supernatural when a twin can feel something negatively happening to their twin while they are in different coasts?

 

NKYSPORTS, your assumption is that it cannot be proven. How can you say without a doubt that there will NEVER be any true scientific proof?

 

I think science can more explain God than not. You look at how an eye works and it SCREAMS of a God who had a purpose and plan for the eye. NOT that it was an accident.

Maybe I was unclear. When I say natural, I meant "of this world". God is of this world as well as heaven above.

 

I agree that just because their is a scientific explanation for how the eye develops and works does not mean that God did not have a hand in it. But you can formulate an argument saying that our eye developed as a result of chemical reactions, adaptations, blah blah, etc. I am just saying that science isn't trying to prove or disprove God.

Maybe I was unclear. When I say natural, I meant "of this world". God is of this world as well as heaven above.

 

I agree that just because their is a scientific explanation for how the eye develops and works does not mean that God did not have a hand in it. But you can formulate an argument saying that our eye developed as a result of chemical reactions, adaptations, blah blah, etc. I am just saying that science isn't trying to prove or disprove God.

 

I think I like your response better than mine.

Disproving evolution does not give good reason that God exists, and proving evolution does not give good reason that God does not exist.

 

:thumb:

 

Within my personal beliefs I do not find evolution and Christianity to be at odds. I also hold that it is futile to attempt to prove or disprove God.

^What is the time line issue?

The world was created in seven days. The world would also have begun well after we have evidence that the world existed.

Not just faith. There is a written document as well. You may not choose to believe the written document, which is fine. You choose to believe other written documents, which is also fine. However, the written document is still evidence, and the weight you give to it and I give to it may be different.

 

Let's say you are presented with a document. Let's say that it contains 1000 items. Let's say I set out to find archaeological or other such evidence of each item. The more I find, does it not also follow that the more likely it is that the remainder of the document is probably accurate? So, if I prove 60% of the places, persons, and events in the rest of Genesis were tangible, is it more or less likely that Genesis 1:1 is also true?

 

Do I have to prove 100% of something for it to be true? If you say "yes," then evolution cannot be a viable theory because you know as well as I do that it has holes. If you say "no," then all I have to do is to prove that some of what is contained in the Book of Genesis via archaeological or other evidence is accurate, to suggest that perhaps the remainder of Genesis may also be accurate. If you say "there is a spectrum of proof and evolution has shown more," then you are merely re-stating that the theory is a process of study and one's acceptance is just a question of weight to the evidence. How much is enough? 60% of the theory? 40%?

 

I state that Creationism can be proven, and my belief is that it is, as it relates to humans.

 

You can prove historical events, you can not prove whether there is or is not a creator. That is impossible as far as I know.

I see God as much as the natural as the sun, the stars or the sky.

I see God as much as the natural as the trees out my windown, the rain falling from the sky or the makeup of the human eye.

 

Science has researched the connections between twins. Is that natural, supranatural or supernatural when a twin can feel something negatively happening to their twin while they are in different coasts?

 

NKYSPORTS, your assumption is that it cannot be proven. How can you say without a doubt that there will NEVER be any true scientific proof?

 

I think science can more explain God than not. You look at how an eye works and it SCREAMS of a God who had a purpose and plan for the eye. NOT that it was an accident.

 

That is exactly what I'm trying to say. It screams that, to you. Some people do not think of a God when they think of how the world was created. It is because of your faith that you believe that. There is nothing wrong with that, but that is not science.

 

So once again,

 

Science can not prove that God is real. Science can not prove that God is not real either.

I will ask you the same question I asked in the other thread and you did not answer.

 

How can you know that you cannot scientifically prove the existence of God?

 

And yet the scientific community is fighting the desire to research the topic of Creationism.

 

I have not seen your question yet, that is probably why I did not answer it. I apologize for not answering it in a timely manner.

 

If I've said it once, I've said it a hundred times. God is based on faith. Religion is based on faith. There is no way to go up into the heavens and find out whether or not there really is a God, not until you are dead anyways.

 

Anyone can study anything. People are out there trying to prove Creationism right now. Isn't there a Creation Museum in Kentucky? So you are seriously telling me that people aren't researching it? Are you kidding?

I have not seen your question yet, that is probably why I did not answer it. I apologize for not answering it in a timely manner.

 

If I've said it once, I've said it a hundred times. God is based on faith. Religion is based on faith. There is no way to go up into the heavens and find out whether or not there really is a God, not until you are dead anyways.

 

Anyone can study anything. People are out there trying to prove Creationism right now. Isn't there a Creation Museum in Kentucky? So you are seriously telling me that people aren't researching it? Are you kidding?

 

It is funny, because the scientific community is not allowing research.

And when people outside the scientific community, Creationism Museum, tries to research it, they are derided as not being true scientists. But the scientific community is not allowing true scientists to research it.

You can prove historical events, you can not prove whether there is or is not a creator. That is impossible as far as I know.

 

I would hazard a guess that 500 years ago, people would have said that it was impossible to fly or send people to the moon.

 

But scientifically, they kept researching till that was possible.

 

So, unless the scientific community allows the continued research to prove that there is a creator, how would we ever know.

 

But interestingly, whether it is from fear or simply don't believe, the scientific community seems to be blocking research into creationism.

I would hazard a guess that 500 years ago, people would have said that it was impossible to fly or send people to the moon.

 

But scientifically, they kept researching till that was possible.

 

So, unless the scientific community allows the continued research to prove that there is a creator, how would we ever know.

 

But interestingly, whether it is from fear or simply don't believe, the scientific community seems to be blocking research into creationism.

 

 

 

I do not understand how the scientific community can block all research into Creationism. It's not like they hold all the tools and are not sharing. It is quite possible for anyone who feels it necessary to do research, to do it on their own.

 

As a matter of fact, I'm sure there are people out researching it right now. This is a free country, not a dictatorship.

 

I, for one, do not need empirical evidence that God is real. I believe in God and I don't care if it is ever proven as a fact.

I believe that Einstein's Theory of Relativity and the Second Law of Thermodynamics are consistent with the idea that there was some initial cause to the Universe that brought forth something from nothing.

The world was created in seven days. The world would also have begun well after we have evidence that the world existed.

 

How long was God's day?

 

As for the second sentence, what passage in Genesis do you claim stands for when the world began? I think I know what you're looking for, but by doing so you're committing the infraction often tossed at Christians, that is, that the scriptures contain all the history of the world. They do not, and I would say the majority of Christians do not believe that (though some do).

I do not understand how the scientific community can block all research into Creationism. It's not like they hold all the tools and are not sharing. It is quite possible for anyone who feels it necessary to do research, to do it on their own.

 

As a matter of fact, I'm sure there are people out researching it right now. This is a free country, not a dictatorship.

 

I, for one, do not need empirical evidence that God is real. I believe in God and I don't care if it is ever proven as a fact.

 

$$$$$$$$$$$$$

 

According to the professors who have been stymied, funding is not given to any research that involves creationism. One astronomy scientists was told to remove the part about God creating the heavens and him wanting to search the heavens for such proof out. It was implied that he would receive his funding if that was not part of it.

 

Even a scientific journalists who wrote in a scientific journal, support for creationism was fired.

The world was created in seven days. The world would also have begun well after we have evidence that the world existed.

 

If God can create a rock, then why can't he create a million year old rock?