2Long - I am really trying to resist getting involved in this discussion. There are NEVER any "winnners" in this discussion because each position IS based upon the individual's perspective regarding God and the Bible.

The evidence is NOT "overwhelming," the speculation and hypothesis are.

We DO NOT know the "specifics" of how life originated, whether in the "scientific" realm or in the "biblical" realm. Furthermore, neither condition (the origin of the universe or the origin of life) is "reproduceable" and, therefore, "verifiable."

We know nothing about how life "evolved." What we have are bunch of hypothesis that are continually being discarded and modified as "new" discoveries are made. Take for example the touting of the fossil Coelocanth (lung fish). It was found as a fossil and touted as "proof" of an evolutionary step to "air breathing land animals." Then, low and behold, this "fossil," extinct for millenia, was found alive, unchanged, and quite "hale and hearty" off the coast of Africa...all with no changes from the "fossil record."

Again, it's NOT "problem-solving," it IS agenda driven. It is driven by the "agenda": if NOT creation by purpose and design of an intelligent "Supreme Being," then it MUST be by natural laws and process and random chance.

2Long, the issue of whether or not dinosaurs were reptiles or birds, or "evolved" into mammals, or anything else is irrelevant to the fundamental question of "how did LIFE itself begin?" Let me grant you this, IF evolution and life arising from "non-life" IS how life began, then evolution IS the only other viable alternative explanation to how life arose, and the various forms of life. On the other hand, if God exists, if Jesus Christ IS who he says he is, and if the Bible is an accurate accurate account as revealed by that God to us, then life arose by intelligent design, complete in it's many distinct species.

There has been, to date, not ONE single example of a new species being "created (evolved)" from another species. Variations within species are fact, so skin color is NOT a "proof" of evolution. But the capacity for variation within a species comes from two primary sources...already present in the genetic code (such things as dominant and recessive genes) and mutations of the genetic code (the vast majority of which are harmful or fatal to the species and NONE of which has resulted in a new and completely different species emerging).

2Long, this whole issue is an exercise in futility to discuss beause the fundamental question regarding "TRUTH" is NOT the origins of life or the universe, it is simply "IS JESUS CHRIST WHO HE SAYS HE IS?"

If he is NOT, it does not matter how things got started. The only point to such a study would be to "satisfy" our innate human curiosity.

The Scripture postulates (states as fact to Christians) that "God Created." The validity of Scripture rests squarely on the shoulders of Jesus Christ.

The "Scientific Method" should be applied to answering the question about the man Jesus of Nazareth, his claims, and the events recorded in the Scripture. Then, faced with the facts, each individual must choose to accept or reject those facts...but furthermore, they must choose to accept or reject Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and Savior even if they accept the "facts" as true.

Believe it or not, there ARE still "flat earthers" around today. The "facts" alone do not require acceptance. A willingness to surrender "opinion" and personal "pride" and personal "wants and desires" is required. Excuses and "reasons" to reject the facts are plentiful, but humbleness and acceptance of the facts even if they go against our "human nature" and desire to "be in control" is truly "scientific" in posture. The hypothesis is proposed, the facts are observed and examined, the theory is developed, and there can be NO contradictory information that disproves a hypothesis for the theory to be accepted as fact. THE single factor up for examination that CAN be reviewed in all of it's aspects is JESUS CHRIST. "Prove" or "disprove" him. Upon HIM rests all the other things because He IS the life and the truth and the way, through him and by him all things were formed that were formed. IF Jesus Christ is NOT who he claims to be, everything else is irrelevant.

So is there an "agenda" on either side of the "evolutionary debate?" What do you think?

If I can find the time, and if I feel up to it, I can toss up a lot more for discussion. But I'm not sure if it's worth the effort. Here's just one sample of such far ranging areas for discussion: Geology ASSUMES that all things seen today ARE the way that they have always been. Is that a "valid" assumption or a mere hypothesis?

But as seekers of truth--we do benefit from other people's points of view. Dont you think?

And as seekers of truth--we are all on the same team--so you're right--there are no winners--its all win win!(except those that don't join in the search for the truth that is!) <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

And we can talk about the ever changing theories and discoveries in Science and all of the ever changing meanings (interpretations and translations) of the Bible--so long as our main purpose is still to find the truth.

Don't you thnk?

What do you think about my former post Forever?

Yes MM, you did see a post from me which I deleted. I find this whole discussion more than upsetting. Not the debate on evolution vs creationism as that is all good and all interesting, it is the underlying premise of this thread that it is either/or, and that your belief is absolute, just because you "know" it to be so. I agree with WAT and 2long there.

I love Jesus and have since I was a little girl and first learned of him. I used to think that when I was punished in school for talking and had to stand with my face in the corner with my hand behind my back it was so I couldn't pray. LOL That to me was worse than standing in the corner. Then my mom told me I didn't have to put my hands together to pray.

To me Jesus brought a message of love to the world, he was/remains the holiest and most evolved of all men.

However I do not believe in heaven the way you do. I do not think there is a place where only those who take every single pasage in the bible as literal law are going to sit. And I do not believe in a literal hell either.

And to use Jesus as a basis of fear, the fear of hell, is wrong in my opinion.

And you (not just you but Fundalmentalists) do a grave injustice and disrespect to all the other followers of different religions and beliefs by stating that your belief is the only true, real belief.


Even if you do sugar coat it by saying you don't, that salvation is between the person and God.

Even the holiest of holy men meet occasionally, such as His Holiness the Pope, and His Holiness the Dalai Lama to discus their views and to come together and rejoice in the different religions. Because the point of religion after all is for greater good of all mankind.

You might want to tell your followers that even the ten commandments in the bible were written for a specific group of people, in a specific time, and in a specific land. FOR THAT group of people.

And in the context of the bible the (third or forth?) commandment of "thou shalt not commit adultry" was written because women were considered the property of their husbands and to take another mans property was a grievous offense. It had nothing to do with morality.

So you may question my love of Christ or even my love of MY God if you like. Or deem it unworthy and sentence me to hell, if that suits your purpose and that is okay with me, but I am a Christian and I DO NOT take the bible to be the absolute last word of God. I was taught that a Christian is someone who believes that Jesus walked this earth to save us from ourselves, and was the son of God. He walked this earth to teach love! Well I do believe that, so I would say that makes me a Christian, just not a Fundalmentalist Christian.

And I do find many passages especially in the New Testament to be of great comfort.

But then I also find the writings of His Holiness the Dalai Lama, Depak Chopra and Thomas Moore to be of equal comfort.

Now MM, this is my belief and to discredit it or disrespect it by finding the many holes in it which I know you will, would be... well unkind and rude.

So let's leave it at this, as I do not wish to debate my beliefs, because like other people and their beliefs, they are very near to my heart and I have a right to them without being called on them.

Not saying that you would do that MM. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" />

Oh I have one more thought which I need to get out before I can put this out of my mind and get working -

Why would God create us and then give only ONE path to home to Him, and all the rest of his people would be damned for all eternity in hell. Why would a God of love make a plan where not all of his people were saved, only those that choose Jesus Christ as their savior? And then not give any real concrete hard evidence of it.

Does that sound like a God of love? That is one of the problems I have with following a religious sect which says only those in that sect will be granted eternity.

Makes absolutely no sense to me why God would do this. So I choose to believe that He didn't, the Fundalmentalists did.

Oh, FH, questions of faith and the divinity of Jesus Christ cannot be subject to the scientific method. For heaven's sake. For me, nothing diminishes the idea of a supreme being more than somebody saying you can actually "prove" this being is there. It always turns into some lame thought experiment.

Has anyone ever read The Cloud of Unknowing? It's hard to read, but worth it. It says that god's power is utterly tied to his unknowability.

Regarding the use of words like "fact" and "proof"... as a scientist, I find these words to be disreputable. I have never used either of these words in my work as a scientist. Not ever. We use words like "theory" and "evidence" because "fact" and "proof" are for the legal system, not science. I doubt the credibility of anybody who throws these words around in a discussion of science. You rarely hear them come from a scientist's mouth in a debate like this one. Ask yourself why that is.

GC

Weaver...so much you have said here. And much of it very good!! And then you end it by cutting off the discussion by saying that if I were to offer a differing opinion or to show you facts that might change your opinion, that I would be unkind and rude. Interesting. What you basically said was that "I have my beliefs and for anyone to question them or to offer alternatives...well, that is not allowed." And, without being mean here Weaver (as I have said, I am NOT here to beat anyone up), the definition of what you have just said is "closed mindedness." Which is the very condition you accused me and fundamentalist Christians of.

But, in the spirit of love, which is why I offer this...I am going to address what you have said here.

First off, to preface this...EVERYONE is entitled to their beliefs. If my Lord Jesus Christ and His Father allows free will in the world, that means I must allow it also. So, every human being is free to believe what they want, and free to follow Him or not. So, I am not talking about taking away your belief to believe as you would like.

Now, if I had a belief in something, and soeone could prove that it had holes in it...I would want to know. Why? Because if I believe something that is not true, and someone around me didnt tell me...then first off all, my belief system is based on falsehoods. And second of all, the people around me that knew of the holes and knew the facts...and didnt tell me...were the OPPOSITE of being loving. They, I would contend, would be the cruel ones.

I say that it is between you and God, not to whitewash anything. I will present the truth as I know it...and be open to the truth as it is presented to me. But in the end, I stand alone before God and answer for myself. And so will you. So, to use a metaphor...I have no dog in the fight! If you chose not to believe that Jesus is the Way, the Truth, the Light...it really is no skin off my back, save for the fact that it does hurt me when I think of the people I will nto hang out with in heaven. But remember, free will. People choose to go to hell, just as they choose to go to heaven. And to not make a choice...is to still make a choice (what song did that come from???).

You and I and everyone else is free to chose who we think Jesus Christ is. ForeverHers made a great point of that above. The point is with Christianity that EVERYONE must decide who they think Jesus is.

Most of us have heard the lunatic-liar-Lord scenario. If not, a short blurb on that. Because we do know most of what Jesus said and did while on this Earth, we are presented with just three views of Him...and as can be seen by this, there can be no other view of Him. A lot of people say he was a prophet, or a good guy, or had great sayings, etc. But if he wasnt who He said He was, which was the Son of God, the Messiah...who came down to save us...and who said that He, and only He is the way to God...then He wasnt a very good or noble or nice man.

We do know He said these things. That is not up for debate here. Both the Bible, as well as secular historical writings and findings, have corroborated that Jesus made these statements.

Thus, we are left with just three views of jesus. Either He said He was these things...and He was not...and He didnt know He wasnt...that would make Him crazy, a lunatic. I can say all day long that I am God, but if I am not, but I BELIEVE I am...I need to go to a place with guys with nice white coats and medication.

Now, if I wasnt all of these things...and KNEW that I wasnt these things but said I was, I am still not a nice guy. As a matter of fact, that would make me evil. A liar.

So, in these first two cases, Jesus is not who He said He was. And He either didnt know it, which would make Him crazy for saying He was those things...or he knew it, which would make Him a bad man...a liar.

There is a third choice. Since Jesus did say these things, then if they are true...well, then He is who He says He was. And then we are faced with whether or not we are to follow Him.

Weaver, Jesus was very narrow. He did not give us much choice about Him. He was either a nice little lunatic who walked around saying He was God and didnt know that He was not, or He was a self-centered liar who made claims He knew were false. Or He is who He said He was.

I cannot express this any more clearly or basically. All of Christianity boils down to that. What "flavor" of Christian you are, whether you are baptized by immersion or sprinkling, whether you are Catholic or Baptist...it matters not to this question. The question Jesus asked in the New Testament is the same question He asks you and me...Who do you say that I am?

I am not stuck up on names. Christianity. Baptist. Catholic. Fundamentalist. All just words. What Jesus wants to know is...who do you think He is? If He is the Son of God, if He is the things He professed to be, then we must accept everything He said and did. We cant say "well, I believe most of it...but I cant believe a loving Jesus would discount other religions."

Look, I wrote this somewhere above but I will try the illustration again. If Jesus is not a liar or a lunatic...if He is who He says He was, then He is the Son of God. Now, if He is the Son of God, dont you think He knows the truth? Dont you think He knows what is right and what is wrong? I dont care what some men say, or some books say...what did Jesus say? And if He is who He claimed to be, then He does know Truth. Now, would it be loving of Jesus to let anyone just believe whatever they want about Him and about His Father? No it would not. Here's why.

Some of our educators a decade ago wanted to do away with grades. Thought it wasnt right to judge these kids. That what was important was the process, not the result. That it wasnt good for their self-esteem to tell them they were wrong when they answered 2+2=5. My contention is that these educators were not being loving, not helping these childrens, and definitely not helping their self-esteem. Why? Because they knew the truth, but would not impart the truth. They wanted to let these kids go into the world thinking 2+2=5. That that was a valid answer...just as valid as 2+2=4. And that is nonsense. 2+2=5 is NOT valid on any level. It is not the truth, and anyone allowing a child to continue believing 2+2=5 is being cruel in my estimation...and setting hem up for failure.

Back to Jesus. If jesus is who He said He was, then He knew the truth. To allow us to make it up as we went along, to do it whatever way...to say anythign about His Father, including that His Father doesnt exist...would make Jesus cruel. And not loving. Many people say that because Chrisitanity is so narrow (Jesus is the way) that it is cruel and unloving. Not so. If Jesus is who He said He was, then the most loving thing Jesus could do was to say "I am the Way, the Truth, the Light...no one gets to the Father except through Me." To allow us to believe otherwise would be cruel and evil.

Now, we are free to believe 2+2=5. That is our right under our God-given free will. He will not force Jesus on you. Neither will I. But I would be cruel and evil if, since I do know Jesus, since I have accepted Jesus is not a lunatic or a liar (which leaves me with only one conclusion...He is who He said He was), I did not tell you or anyone else out there the truth.

You know, there are people today that say the Holocaust didnt happen. Can you believe that? They said the pictures were made up. They cant fathom anyone being that evil and cruel. But we know it happened. We have accounts of people who were there.

Well, we know Jesus came to this Earth. We know the things He said and taught. And we know He died on a Cross. People can say He didnt come. Or he didnt say those things. But there were eye witness accountings. There were government documents. There were historians who wrote. Any person that is thinking, knows the Holocaust happened. Any person that is thinking, knows that Jesus came, said what He said, and died.

So, again...it comes down to Who do you say Jesus is? Lunatic? Liar? Lord? There are no other possibilities. I say He is Lord, thus I believe the things He said. Which I means that as much as man has tried to find God thru other religions, Jesus has said that they are looking in the wrong place. "I am the Way..."

I will post more later on the validity of the Bible, and validity of Jesus' claims in history.

I do not say Islam is wrong because I am self-centered. I do not say a Buddhist want get to heaven because I am ego-centric. I say these things because Jesus said these things. And if He is who He said He was, then He has to be right.

In His arms.

Great question Weaver...I will be back in a few minutes to answer it!!!

You are absolutely right! My sensitivity and bias is clear in how I ended my post.

I don't have time to read the rest of your answer MM, but I will this weekend.

I am unclear in my own beliefs and question them frequently, so it is easy to be defensive.

I will never follow Fundalmentalism but need to respect you, FH and others who do and I need to be open to hearing you out.

As Ahuman said we are all seekers here, and remaining open and respecful to differing views is part of it.

MM:

"I also am tired of evolutionists saying all creation science is bunk. It is not."

I'm sorry that you're tired, but it is bunk.

"there is good, hard evidence out there that points to a Creator, that points to a beginning. Have they proven Creation? Nope."

There are indeed *arguments* that point 2 a creator, but there is no "hard evidence". There's a big difference. Different processes, remember?

"But neither has evolution."

More precisely, neither have the evolutionists. "Evolution" isn't an entity trying 2 prove anything. It's a collection of scientific observations that are being explained, increasingly accurately with time, by hypothesis formulation, testing, validation, falsification, and refinement that has resulted in theories 2 explain the observations. The observations that live evolved from simple 2 complex forms over geologic time is a fact. The details of how that happened are also facts.

"Thus we continue to search. Again, I do not abandon science for faith."

I wouldn't either, if you were 2 describe my spiri2al beliefs as "faith." And I wouldn't suggest that any religious person - even ForeverHers <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/eek.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> - choose one and exclude the other because of some perceived requirement by ANYBODY 2 do so. They serve very different purposes, which is why I have a tough time understanding the need 2 take sides.

"Because I believe that my faith actually can, has and will be proven scientifically."

Okay, but why do you need this? I know many very religious people who are scientists who don't.

"As we move on here in this discussion, I will try to bring out some of that scientific work for Creation. So far, I have only concentrated on evolution."

Okay. But here's some more Gould, the former human:

“I was lucky to wander into evolutionary theory, one of the most exciting and important of all scientific fields. I had never heard of it when I started at a rather tender age; I was simply awed by dinosaurs. I thought paleontologists spent their lives digging up bones and putting them together, never venturing beyond the momentous issue of what connects to what. Then I discovered evolutionary theory. Ever since then, the duality of natural history—richness in particularities and potential union in underlying explanation—has propelled me.

“I think that the fascination so many people feel for evolutionary theory resides in three of its properties. First, it is, in its current state of development, sufficiently firm to provide satisfaction and confidence, yet fruitfully undeveloped enough to provide a treasure trove of mysteries. Second, it stands in the middle in a continuum stretching from sciences that deal in timeless, quantitative generality to those that work directly with the singularities of history. Thus, it provides a home for all styles and propensities, from those who seek the purity of abstraction (the laws of population growth and the structure of DNA) to those who revel in the messiness of irreducible particularity (what, if anything, did Tyrannosaurus do with its puny front legs anyway?). Third, it touches all our lives; for how can we be indifferent to the great questions of genealogy: where did we come from and what does it all mean? and then, of course, there are all those organisms: more than a million described species, from bacterium to blue whale, with one hell of a lot of beetles in between—each with its own beauty, and each with a story to tell.”

— The Panda's Thumb, New York: W. W. Norton, 1980, pp. 11-12.

-ol' 2long

weaver:

"I used to think that when I was punished in school for talking and had to stand with my face in the corner with my hand behind my back it was so I couldn't pray."

I MUST stop reading the rest of this thread for a moment and give your inner child a great big vir2al hug

(((((((weaver)))))))

I know what it feels like 2 feel punished or persecuted (whether I was or just thought I was) like you describe... ...and how LONG it takes 2 get past that hurt.

-ol' 2long

As expected, discussions like this inevitably polarize into two camps - each of which is characterized by the clarity of their own views and astonished by the stubbornness of the other's.

How can reasonably intelligent people be so polarized?

I propose that it’s because we’re not talking about the same subject.

This thought came to me when I read MM’s new title for this post - "....Creationism vs Evolution."

This is like saying baseball vs football. Carnivores vs herbivores. Architecture vs film. We’re not even on the same dance floor.

But dance we try.

No wonder we’re stepping on each other’s toes.

Being a proponent of evolutionary science - as it continues to progress and "evolve" with each new discovery - I do believe that other proponents, as 2long has already stated, do not consider this to be a contest vs creationism or intelligent design or anything else. In fact, alternative explanations are welcomed! It’s every researcher’s and scientist’s dream to make a discovery that turns conventional wisdom on its head or provides a new piece of the puzzle in any scientific subject - for few puzzles are completed. This is the only contest - find the next puzzle piece before the next guy/gal. History is replete with scientific pioneers who do just that. That said, alternative explanations and new "pieces" are neither accepted on face value nor overnight. Ya gotta make your case. The science community will enthusiastically welcome a good case - it has to.

For reasons I can only speculate about, some folks however do consider a contest to exist in Creationism vs Evolution. Invariably, these are the creationists. Why? I don't understand. Baseball vs football. These are two games, but on entirely different fields with different rules. Architecture vs film. These are two art forms, but with entirely different mediums in different galleries.

I guess creationists feel threatened and need to "create" a contest. But it’s religion/faith vs science. Baseball vs film. Football vs architecture. Science isn’t even interested in playing such a non-sensical game - until the creationists attempt to make a game of this with our kids in the classrooms. Only then does science need to be concerned.

But I’m still baffled by why creationists think they need to do this. Why not be satisfied with the easy recognition that we’re talking about two vastly different things? Why does it have to be one or the other? Why can’t the two co-exist? Play football in the football stadium and baseball on the diamond. Heck - even put the diamond next store to the architecture museum. Celebrate the differences!

If I was Pope or King Christian for a day I’d advise the flock to relax and tend to more important matters. This is what I'd say:
This is my last contribution to this thread. This has nothing to do with marriage building and I suggest the moderators close this thread so that I can retain what little hair I have remaining.

WAT
---------------
Pick the flavor of God and the spiritual toppings, and you've got yourself a religious faith as good as anyone else's.

Well stated, WAT

(as 2long frantically types this post before the moderaters read WAT's!)

2dles!

-ol' 2long

Science and Religion have different objectives (Science being to explain the natural world, Religion being spiritual in nature).

But I think when we start talking about evolution and creationism there ARE some conflicts that are disturbing people and it is too easily dismissed as "being different" arenas.

Evolution implies that the planet earth was not created SOLELY for humans. Whereas creationism proposes that the whole reason the earth exists is for mankind to exist.

I think that's the part people have a hard time swallowing. It's the old Galileo problem, if you follow me.

(Had to bring this up again, since EVERYONE ignored my former post. Sigh <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/frown.gif" alt="" />).

Gooday!

Ahuman:

I saw and read your post!!

I think you have a point, but being an evolutionary scientist myself, and watching the whole process from when it started (Duane Gish and company "invented" Creation Science about 25 years or so ago), I think it's important 2 note that creation science was developed for the sole purpose of countering a perceived attack on fundamentalism (itself a fairly recent invention - last couple hundred years in North America) by the teaching of evolutionary science in science classes in school.

It's true, objective investigation of evolution does imply that the univers wasn't created 2 produce humankind. But it is also true that nearly every evolutionary scientist I know - whether religious or no - is awed in2 silence by the beauty and majesty of the universe and everything in it, and by the preciousness of every human life within all that infinity.

How wonderful!

-ol' 2long

MM,

Quite a topic you have going here. A few observations, if I may.

The peer-reviewed literature (i.e. scientific journals) is the record of the scientific community. Any other sources are completely irrelevant in a discussion about scientific findings. At minimum, if it doesn’t appear in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, or if it did appear and was later refuted, it is not recognized as legitimate in the scientific community. A pop culture book on ‘science’ or a blurb from a creationist/ID website, or a personal opinion from anyone does not constitute a legitimate scientific source.

The last time I checked, here is the list of unrefuted papers in peer-reviewed, scientific journals that present scientific evidence disputing evolution, limited to say, the last 100 years or so:


The blank space is no mistake; there are none. On the other hand, there are literally tens of thousands of scientific papers supporting it. In so much so, it is indeed referred to as a ‘scientific fact’ in the scientific community, and has been for some time. Thus claims of ‘scientists are moving toward ID and away from evolution’ are demonstratably false.

A common lay idea seems to be that evolution is probabilistically impossible or highly improbable (I also recall a number of years ago that the claim that evolution violated the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics was popular in the creationist community). Personally, I would think that after 150 years of study perhaps the scientific community may have noticed this somewhat significant problem.

At present we have no idea on how much ‘chance’ is involved in a evolutionary outcome. It could be a lot; it just as well could be very little or close to none at all. We simply don’t know. I don’t know that any scientific models even exist on this in a general sense. I searched for this once in the scientific literature and I couldn’t find any.

As you seem to believe that this ‘probabilistically impossible’ argument is scientifically or mathematically valid, please cite the peer-reviewed, scientific journal paper(s) in which such a statement appeared. If you don’t happen have a legitimate scientific source to support this belief, we can make it easier: present the most convincing looking mathematical ‘proof’ of the improbability argument that you can find. We’ll take a look at it right here, even if it wasn’t of sufficient intellectual quality to be published in the scientific literature.

Another pocket of misunderstanding in the confusion between evolution and abiogenesis. The former concerns how the diversity of life developed given that some form of life already exists; the latter concerns the generation of life from non-life. Abiogenesis is not directly related to evolution and, to my knowledge, is not even yet a scientific hypothesis but merely an area of study. Therefore bringing up the (scientifically unsupported) claim of ‘probabilistically impossible’ to attempt to counter abiogensis is completely irrelevant to evolution.

When I read statements similar to ‘science has not disproven creationism/ID or statements in the Bible’ or even worse, ‘the scientific method can prove Creationism’, I see behind them an ignorance of what scientific methodology even is.

I would suggest that you check out a book on the scientific method or talk to a science professor at your local university and really learn what the terms “scientific method” “scientific evidence”, “scientific hypothesis” and “scientific theory and/or law” mean.

I must admit that I’m somewhat puzzled why what science has verified or disproved is even relevant to those who simply reject scientific findings that they don’t like anyway.


Another topic:

MM--For those that dont believe the universe was ever created, that it was always here...well, that is nonsensical. The Universe could not have come from nothing and by nothing.

Question: how do you equate ‘always here’ to ‘coming from nothing?’ I am confused as to what you mean here. What if I say the following:

“For those that dont believe that God was ever created, that He was always here...well, that is nonsensical. God could not have come from nothing and
by nothing.”

Peace and God bless,

D

A lot here. I will just address right now the last part, as I have addressed and will address some of the other things you have said in a follow on post to some others.

You take the Universe issue and interject God into the equation. What I was talking about was there are those that believe in the scientific community that there was a Big Bang, a beginning to the Universe. What I was saying is that anything that begins, has to have a cause. Thus, if the Universe began (Big Bang), it had to have a cause.

I have by no means said that God began...thus God does not need a cause.

I hope that explains it.

In His arms.

Now 2Long...just because some people say it is bunk, doesnt make it bunk. if I said evolution science was bunk, does that make it bunk? Just cause I said it, or some other guys said it? There are some very good scientists out there that have kept an open mind to this, and said that they are taking all possibilities into account. Not starting from a position where some of them are bunk.

In some of these other posts, I have people here (a lot of scientists on this board!! Awesome!!) who want to say that science is science and religion is religion. To an extent they are right, but they are also wrong. Let me take this to something else, which someone else said above, to illustrate this.

Let's say I want to prove a crime happened. I am a prosecutor. The law and legal findings are far different than scientific findings. But I can use legal findings to find the truth, just as I can use scientific findings to find the truth (I hope I am explaining myself well enough here). Science and law, while being apples and oranges...are fruit. Both look to find the truth.

Religion, at least in the case of Christianity (I cant speak for other religions), is a search for the truth. It is another way to look at the world. I was asked above, what about scientists who believe in evolution and are Christians. Well, what about them? You can be a Christian, and you can believe in evolution. There are areas of this where the two are dealing with entirely different things. Evolution explaiins nothing about the atoning of sins, of heaven, of what Jesus was have supposed to have done here.

But the two are not totally separate. They do come together at points. And one of these points is where we try to explain "Where did I come from?" Both have valid pieces of the pie. There are things that "religion" can explain that science just cannot. And there are things that we need science to explain that religion cannot or hasnt provided us.

On the issue of where did we come from, the issue for a Christian who is a proponent of evolution is when the two become opposed to each other on an issue. What do you do?

You know, I seem to have read i nthe 70s that we were headed for an ice age. Then in the 80s and 90s, I heard from science that we have global warming due to fossil fuels and we are going to melt the polar ice caps.

Then last week, I see findings by some scientists to say that because of the corrections we have made in pollution and such, that now we dont have a greenhouse...we now have a problem of too much direct sunlight hitting the Earth...warming it up.

Do you see? These scientists walk in and say "I am right..we are right...the internal combustion engine is destroying the planet" (I can see the next post "MM, just like evolution, global warming due to mankind is without question). Why is it without question. Science hasnt got it right yet in their studies of climate over the last 30 years. We get highly educated scientists sitting in the same room, looking at the same data...and coming up with different conclusions.

Above, I had the blank line given to me. That science has essentially proven evolution, and is just working out the last of the details. But I have presented evolutionary scientists here who have said the exact opposite. That have said that there are way too many questions still un-answered.

Again, I am not a molecular biologist. I am not a chemist. But I am trained enough, and have learned enough to be able to read and pick up on these concepts to understand that the jury is still out. Actually, my background is more in the law. Now, all of you scientists out there, do you need a law degree to understand the law, or understand what a lawyer explains to you? Nope. If you had lawyers questioning the law as much as scientists have questioned evolution, would you have much faith in their predicitions in the outcome of the case? You would not.

I could have a "trial" right here, and have proponents of evolution walk in and present their case. Then have opponents, or scientists that have found that it did not happen that way, walk in and present their case. And guess what? The jury could not rule, beyond a reasonable doubt that evolution is the way this all happened. There is no way.

That is why, until we fill in the scientific blanks in any of these theories, we must use not just science to explain the gaps. We must use historical evidence. We must use religion.

I am not in opposition to science. What I do say is that just as Galileo proved the Earth round, the flat earthers before he did that were hell bent on saying that they had proven beyond a doubt that the earth was flat.

Evolutionists seem to be doing the same thing. They take a body of evidence, which is incomplete...and make the connection that evolution is true. But might it be false? Just like asking the flat earthers...might you be wrong. "Oh no...no way. Everyone knows the Earth is flat. Look at all of the evidence we have here.") But, what about the other evidence that we have, Mr. flat earther, that shows that your theory just doesnt work?

I have interjected on several occasions, real problems that have arisen in evolutionary science. And not from the outside, or from Creationists with an agenda, as some have eluded to. but from within the evolution science community. I have not debunked evolution. I have not said that it might not be proven true. I have said that the jury is still out.

But the doubts, the problems, etc...they are glossed over by some of you. Why?

Look, I am not threatened by science. I want science to explain things to me, to help me find out more about myself. Where did I come from? I am not afraid of where that answer will lead me, or what it will tell me. But I can say, with all that I have read, all that I have seen, all that I have been told...the jury is still out!

Again, I am open to learning anything new, especially if it is the truth. But most that I have heard here, opponents of their position in the scientific community are referred to as bunk, or not serious scientists, or they have an agenda. Dismissing them out of hand.

Science can and has in many ways, proven what my faith tells me. I am like Thomas, when Jesus showed up after He rose from the dead. Doubting Thomas. I need to stick my fingers in the holes in his hands, feet and side to believe it.

What I need from science is proven fact. What I need from my faith is proven fact. So far, I have that. And so far, it still leaves evolution with a very large ???

We can continue to discuss all of this. So far, I have just talked about evolution, and its problems. We have yet to even touch Creation science (I know...bunk...just like the Earth is round was bunk). But what I think needs to happen is that opposing views and information need to be considered, instead of dismissing without even considering them.

Again, I want proof. I want my church, my God, scientists, lawyers, historians, etc to PROVE to me where I came from. Prove it, beyond a reasonable doubt.

In His arms.

A statement of faith that makes the rest of the thing fall apart. I don't necessarily disagree with it. This illustrates why there is no argument to have.

Until they try and put god in our science textbooks.

GC

Not a statement of faith. I listed it in a post above. First, by definition, if there is a Creator of the Universe, that Creator would have to have certain attributes, which I eluded to in the previous post yesterday. This is not an argument of whether or not that there is a Creator, just that the definition of a Creator includes those things. One of those things is that the Creator was not created...did not have a beginning.

If the Big Bang happened (not saying that it did), then it HAD to have a cause. Now, it could either be a Creator...or it could have been something else causing it. But that something else (collapsing of gases or whatever) may have caused it. But what caused the collapsing of gases? What made those gases? You see, you can not have an infinite regression of causes. Something that was uncaused had to start the whole thing. If not a Creator, then what or whom?

On putting God in the textbooks...well, I believe Creation science is valid science and should sit right next to evolution as being taught. What are evolution scientists afraid of? Remember, as JL always tells us, in the end, the right answer always shows itself.

And speaking of textbooks...I was burned up last year when my son comes home from school and I find out that the teachers were teaching that Thanksgiving was the Pilgrims feast in order to thank the Indians (ooppsss, sorry...Native Americans!). Talk about schools teaching bunk. But we are so scared of God even being anywhere near our schools, that we will teach downright falsehoods to our kids. I blew my top!! I told the school that if you cant teach the TRUTH...then just leave it alone. The Pilgrims were a church, that got up...got on a boat, and came to the New World. They had a hard time. And then they had this feast to thank who? God!! But nnnnooooooooo!! Cant say that in schools. Cant say the truth. Cant say these people were having a feast to thank their God for their making it...and invited the Idians (ooppps, ther I go again) to the party. Cant tell the truth...because it has the 4 letter word G-O-D in it.

But hey, I know God. He is a friend of mine. I know He is big enough to take it. I did have to sped the evening telling the truth to my son on the origins of Thanksgiving, since his school seems not to want to teach historical truth.

Same goes with science. Keep God out, no matter what. even if they dont get the whole picture of the argument out there. Mke them think it is all settled.

And then my kids have to come home, and I have to re-educate them because the schools have left out things...or basically not told the truth.

What are they afraid of?? And hey, dont get me started on the separation of church and state. As a political scientist, I am an expert there. And I can tell you, the definition we want to use today for that in no way represents what the Founders intended. And THEY knew religious persecution.

In His arms.

Actually if you are talking about the puritans who came here to get away from England, what they knew was HOW to persecute, they just no longer had the opportunity to do it in England so they had to find someplace new.

Oh lord, now I'm not going to get any work done at all.

Edit to add: Okay MM, another topic for another thread for another day. But this one I actually know quite a bit about and have VERY strong feelings regarding. I have family members who are Wican, and who are big supporters of a website called witchvox.com and as you can imagine this subject is often a very hot topic over there.

Or as Wat says, this has nothing to do with marriage building so why start at all. I know I'll never get to any other threads if I participate.