July 17, 200917 yr Author There's evidence all around us that God exists. We're living in his creation. You just choose to belive (by faith) that this all started with a big bang... I believe (by faith) that God created it all... Other than "in theory", how is there evidence all or around us or even that we are living in his creation. The more I think about it and analyze it I'm more complacent with the Big Bang Theory than anything. I'm cheap and can be easily talked out of it.
July 17, 200917 yr I don't believe any science counters religious beliefs. Much of Darwin's work is theory. It is not fact, despite frequently being presented as so. The assumptions that have to be made to believe in evolution require a much bigger leap of faith than believing in God. Why do the majority of scientists deny the existence of God? I don't know. But, I have a feeling the answer to that question may be more philosophical than scientific. Many are confusing the scientific definition of the word "theory" with the everyday use of the word. Daily use: a guess/idea. You go outside and your car tire is flat. You curse yourself for running over that broken bottle yesterday. (You don't know it, but the neighbor kid next door put a nail in your tire for telling on him for breaking out a window.) Scientific use: technical use is a more or less verified or established explanation accounting for known facts or phenomena (from dictionary.com); Examples include atomic theory, the Big Bang theory, evolution, quantum theory, nebular theory, etc. Theories only get dismissed when evidence shows that they are wrong. FWIW, no evidence shows that the Big Bang Theory or evolution are wrong. On the contrary, evidence supports both, so both are scientifically accepted. Sorry for the thread jacking! The science teacher in me couldn't help it! :lol:
July 17, 200917 yr Other than "in theory", how is there evidence all or around us or even that we are living in his creation. The more I think about it and analyze it I'm more complacent with the Big Bang Theory than anything. I'm cheap and can be easily talked out of it. And, the more I think about it and analyze it the more confident I am in God. We're just different. We see the same thing and reach two different conclusions. I'm not sure there's an explanation for that. When I see the intricate detail that our world operates under, I'm amazed. For me personally, it's just a bigger leap of faith to believe it all happened by chance than to believe God designed it that way. If I don't forget, or if I get time and can find some information today, I'll try to post some of the information that leads me to believe this. One thing that immediately stands out though is the lack of a "missing link" in the fossil tree. Nowhere in the fossil records do we see evidence of any species evolving into another. Is there evolution? Sure. But, we evolve within our species...fish don't evolve into bears.
July 17, 200917 yr I'm a believer in evolution and of course in science, but I can say that I don't think scientists (biologists, physics, chemists, ect.) have any advantage in the field of philosophy over anyone else, and the question of God is a more philosophical question then scientific (because science isn't related to questions beyond the natural). I haven't read extensively about Darwin, but I've done quite a bit of reading on his mini-me Dawkins and I've come to believe that his God-less universe is impossible (although of course Dawkins would say "highly improbable", ironically, as an atheist who refuses to admit anything is impossible). And if you don't use God with a capital G then I'm going to come to Louisville and hit you over the head with a Bible. No, because by definition having faith in something means you believe in it even when it's not provable. If God was scientifically provable then there would be no need for faith. The very nature of God makes Him/Her unprovable in human terms. My beliefs on the matter fall very much in line with you two. Essentially, the bolded sentence says it all for me. I should add that my scientific belief in evolution and the BBT are backed up by my religious beliefs.
July 17, 200917 yr If you subscribe to the principle of causality, there must have been a first cause, and I think that's where God comes into play.
July 17, 200917 yr ...fish don't evolve into bears. The theory of evolution doesn't say that they do. This is another misconception of evolution.
July 17, 200917 yr Many are confusing the scientific definition of the word "theory" with the everyday use of the word. Daily use: a guess/idea. You go outside and your car tire is flat. You curse yourself for running over that broken bottle yesterday. (You don't know it, but the neighbor kid next door put a nail in your tire for telling on him for breaking out a window.) Scientific use: technical use is a more or less verified or established explanation accounting for known facts or phenomena (from dictionary.com); Examples include atomic theory, the Big Bang theory, evolution, quantum theory, nebular theory, etc. Theories only get dismissed when evidence shows that they are wrong. FWIW, no evidence shows that the Big Bang Theory or evolution are wrong. On the contrary, evidence supports both, so both are scientifically accepted. Sorry for the thread jacking! The science teacher in me couldn't help it! :lol: You're right...I did misuse theory. Evolution should be a hypothesis. There's strong evidence that places these theories in doubt as well. Should we teach something as fact when there's doubt?
July 17, 200917 yr The theory of evolution doesn't say that they do. This is another misconception of evolution. What does it say exactly? It seems I should have brushed up on the subject before discussing it. I may have to bow out until I get myself up to speed on everything. :lol:
July 17, 200917 yr What does it say exactly? It seems I should have brushed up on the subject before discussing it. I may have to bow out until I get myself up to speed on everything. :lol: Don't worry, 5wide. I would bet that more than 90% of people believe that is what evolution "says". Thing of it like a flow chart. Organisms with similar characteristics are believed to have evolved from (at some point) the same ancestor.
July 17, 200917 yr Don't worry, 5wide. I would bet that more than 90% of people believe that is what evolution "says". Thing of it like a flow chart. Organisms with similar characteristics are believed to have evolved from (at some point) the same ancestor. So, all life forms evolved from the same "entity". Still unbelievable for me... But, evolution aside, science cannot tell us where the initial life came from. Science, to date, has failed to create life.
July 17, 200917 yr So, all life forms evolved from the same "entity". Still unbelievable for me... But, evolution aside, science cannot tell us where the initial life came from. Science, to date, has failed to create life. I think, 5wide, you are trying to separate science and your Christian faith. You want them word for word to match up. If you would, instead, consider the following. Could that "entity" be the "clay" that God used to "create"? The BBT says that all matter in the universe was focused in an incomprehensably (sp?) small, hot point and that "something" caused that matter to begin rushing outward. Can you not imagine that "dot" in God's hand and He providing the spark for it to begin? I should provide this disclaimer. I don't teach Biology, so I am not going to be able to on demand give as much detail about the theory of evolution, as I can on other areas, such as the BBT or atomic theory. Our school's biology teacher is a close friend of mine. She is very religious (actually a deacon in her church) and for her evolution and her Christian beliefs are tightly woven together. Edited July 17, 200917 yr by True blue (and gold) addition
July 17, 200917 yr I think, 5wide, you are trying to separate science and your Christian faith. You want them word for word to match up. If you would, instead, consider the following. Could that "entity" be the "clay" that God used to "create"? The BBT says that all matter in the universe was focused in an incomprehensably (sp?) small, hot point and that "something" caused that matter to begin rushing outward. Can you not imagine that "dot" in God's hand and He providing the spark for it to begin? I should provide this disclaimer. I don't teach Biology, so I am not going to be able to on demand give as much detail about the theory of evolution, as I can on other areas, such as the BBT or atomic theory. Our school's biology teacher is a close friend of mine. She is very religious (actually a deacon in her church) and for her evolution and her Christian beliefs are tightly woven together. No, I'm not trying to separate science and faith. I don't think the two are exclusive, but rather I believe science points to God. I don't feel like it's necessary for me to make the same assumptions that my science book tells me to make. There are people who see the same scientific information who draw different conclusions...:idunno: I get the impression that you are trying to take the majority opinion on science and explain faith in such a way as to make them compatible...
July 17, 200917 yr No, I'm not trying to separate science and faith. I don't think the two are exclusive, but rather I believe science points to God. I don't feel like it's necessary for me to make the same assumptions that my science book tells me to make. There are people who see the same scientific information who draw different conclusions...:idunno: I get the impression that you are trying to take the majority opinion on science and explain faith in such a way as to make them compatible... Are these people scientists? I might look at an engine and diagnose a problem, but an actual mechanic might see if differently. I am just telling you my beliefs. To me, it was almost an epiphany, learning of the two separately then realizing that they actually went hand in hand.
July 17, 200917 yr Either way, the area of science has little to do with religion. Science is about the natural, not the supernatural or supranatural. Science is not looking to prove or disprove the existence of an intelligent creator. Philosophy is a more relevant discipline. I think this is a probably a good start to answering the question. Scientists are smart people collectively, but they have been trained in a specific way that relies exclusively on testing hypotheses with measurable variables. God isn't measurable. I would hazard a guess that if one polled other groups who have the stigma of being "smart," especially those who don't operate in the culture scientists do, one would find an increased belief in God. Though, that would be interesting to look at. As far as evolution, it is my understanding that there are two types of evolution studied: macroevolution and microevolution. With the latter, there is the fairly undeniable change within species through adaptation and natural selection, like animals with bones they don't use any longer, humans with useless organs, different shapes and figures in past species, etc. Whereas with macroevolution, which from my understanding is more along the lines of life and humanity developing from chemical pools and evolving from a globular of cells do what we have today, and is far less concrete and indeterminate, especially at that first stage. Anxious to hear more from TB&G on this one.
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.