Many atheists I encounter on the internet feel that biblical faith is somehow the opposite of science. But they are in hopeless contradiction. Furthermore, they suppose that somehow atheism is synonymous with science. Well nothing could be further from the truth.

First of all, Modern science has it roots in the Christian faith. Nearly all of the founders of the various branches modern science were in fact, bible believing Christians. That science is somehow impeded by Christianity. is a fallacy. Science has advanced Because of Christianity.

Atheism however, is not compatible with true science. Atheists have simply hijacked science and created a religion out of it. Atheists love to pretend they are "rational", but they are not. Atheism is hopelessly self contradictory! How can you prove that no God exists? If you state that the proof is with those who hold to the affirmative position, you must then prove that statement, since it is an affirmative position!

Atheism borrows logic from the Bible, since the immaterial laws of logic are inexplicible to the materialist atheist, but predicted by the biblical theist. While it is true that absolute proof of the existance of God is not possible, it is so likely as to be "self evident" to most people, which is why athesits will always be in the vast minority, as vocal as they may be.

Since science is rooted in Christianity and is based upon the principle of causality, it is incompatible with atheism, which posits no first cause. Everything which has a beginning has a cause. It is generally agreed that the universe had a cause, therefore there must be a God.

First of all, Modern science has it roots in the Christian faith.
No it doesn't.

Nearly all of the founders of the various branches modern science were in fact, bible believing Christians.
Simply because at the time the sciences were founded nearly everyone was a believer.

That science is somehow impeded by Christianity. is a fallacy. Science has advanced Because of Christianity.
Really?
Such as the cases where religion stated that X was true and science disagreed (and had evidence) but was still over-ridden.
Geocentric solar system, flat Earth, etc etc etc.

Atheism is hopelessly self contradictory! How can you prove that no God exists?
Atheism - no belief in god not a belief that god does not exist.

It is generally agreed that the universe had a cause, therefore there must be a God.
Scientifically speaking the one does not follow at all from the other.
Poorly thought arguments all round.
Maybe you should have read more posts before making this one.

Many atheists I encounter on the internet feel that biblical faith is somehow the opposite of science. But they are in hopeless contradiction. Furthermore, they suppose that somehow atheism is synonymous with science. Well nothing could be further from the truth.

First of all, Modern science has it roots in the Christian faith. Nearly all of the founders of the various branches modern science were in fact, bible believing Christians. That science is somehow impeded by Christianity. is a fallacy. Science has advanced Because of Christianity.

Atheism however, is not compatible with true science. Atheists have simply hijacked science and created a religion out of it. Atheists love to pretend they are "rational", but they are not. Atheism is hopelessly self contradictory! How can you prove that no God exists? If you state that the proof is with those who hold to the affirmative position, you must then prove that statement, since it is an affirmative position!

Atheism borrows logic from the Bible, since the immaterial laws of logic are inexplicible to the materialist atheist, but predicted by the biblical theist. While it is true that absolute proof of the existance of God is not possible, it is so likely as to be "self evident" to most people, which is why athesits will always be in the vast minority, as vocal as they may be.

Since science is rooted in Christianity and is based upon the principle of causality, it is incompatible with atheism, which posits no first cause. Everything which has a beginning has a cause. It is generally agreed that the universe had a cause, therefore there must be a God.
Obviously. You're preaching to the choir. Every normal scientist in the world agrees with you. Well said though...:D

Apparently, there is no end to absurdity.

Many atheists I encounter on the internet feel that biblical faith is somehow the opposite of science. But they are in hopeless contradiction. Furthermore, they suppose that somehow atheism is synonymous with science. Well nothing could be further from the truth.

Atheists feel this way? Have you ever spoken to a theist? I don't know where you've been looking, but atheists are not the ones on the attack. It's quite the contrary. And not just on the interwebs...

First of all, Modern science has it roots in the Christian faith.

No, it doesn't. Science is the study of things, whereas faith teaches you to believe what you're told without questioning it. Faith is illogical by nature, so it cannot be the root of scientific study. Perhaps because of the rigid dogmas of ancient religions, people's curiosity as to the alternative explanation for things was piqued, but that's as close as you'd get to "roots".

Nearly all of the founders of the various branches modern science were in fact, bible believing Christians.

Sigh...I suppose you have some evidence to support this? No? OK, well try this on for size: early scientists had to contend with religious institutions that had real power, and heresy and non-belief were things you could have been killed for. So of course you'd hear that such-and-such was thanks to God, or that so-and-so was a God-fearing man, but the truth is you can't rely on those accounts because it simply was unwise to admit that you didn't believe in God. And by unwise, I mean suicidal.

That science is somehow impeded by Christianity. is a fallacy. Science has advanced Because of Christianity.

Oli already pointed out the whole problem with the Geocentric solar system, and the flat-earth, but how about recently, like the whole refusal by our Evangelical Christian president to federally fund stem cell research? That is Christianity, as usual, standing in the way of scientific advancement.

But let's play a little game here...name me one instance in which Christianity was the cause of science advancing. Please, take me seriously and answer that.

Atheism however, is not compatible with true science. Atheists have simply hijacked science and created a religion out of it. Atheists love to pretend they are "rational", but they are not. Atheism is hopelessly self contradictory! How can you prove that no God exists? If you state that the proof is with those who hold to the affirmative position, you must then prove that statement, since it is an affirmative position!

Well, that is to assume atheism is the active belief that no gods exist. I contend that it is not. I have conceded in other threads that perhaps we need to change the definition of it, considering how vague it is, but for the sake of this discussion let's assume that you're talking about anti-theists...

In that case, I agree that taking the position of absolute certainty that no gods exist is pretty foolish. But let's also note that most theists (especially the ones here) believe that a god does exist, and they have no more evidence for their position than the anti-theist does for his...you see how now you happen to be stumbling into "Pot, meet kettle" territory?

Atheism borrows logic from the Bible

:eek: Buh-wha...?

since the immaterial laws of logic are inexplicible to the materialist atheist, but predicted by the biblical theist.

You're not talking about logic, you're talking about faith. I hate to be the one to say that to you, but you can't compare faith to logic. It does not work that way. That's like comparing apples to grenades.

While it is true that absolute proof of the existance of God is not possible, it is so likely as to be "self evident" to most people, which is why athesits will always be in the vast minority, as vocal as they may be.

It could also be that atheists are in the statistical minority because it is still rather taboo in most social circles to admit to being an atheist, and that includes family circles. For as frank of a conversation as I am capable of having with my mother, the thought of saying to her "Ma, there ain't no such thing as God" to her breaks my heart. I'd never say it to her or around her.

Or it could also be that we are a really young species, and only now starting to pull our heads out of the sand. Perhaps this growing number of folks who don't believe in a god is just the first step towards the next stage of our civilization. It is entirely possible.

Since science is rooted in Christianity and is based upon the principle of causality, it is incompatible with atheism, which posits no first cause.


Again, what do you base the claim that science is rooted in Christianity?

It is generally agreed that the universe had a cause, therefore there must be a God.

Where is this generally agreed? Your house? Your church?

See, what you fail to understand about science (what a shock) is that not having every slice of pizza doesn't mean that pizza doesn't exist. You keep talking about logic, and yet you just can't seem to wrap your mind around this really simple and logical idea.

To jump from "We don't know what first caused the universe" to "It must have been God" is as illogical a leap as one could possibly make. Replace that second line with "It must have been a giant red paper clip", and it's about as probable (and logical) as assuming it must have been God.

Once again, just so you really understand this...just because we don't know what the first cause was does not mean that the entire idea is wrong; it does not invalidate the Big Bang, it does not invalidate evolution (which I'm sure you know just as little about as you do logic and causality), and most importantly, it does not automatically mean that the answer is God. You don't even know if such a being is capable of existing, so let's not go jumping to the assumption that he's the answer.

Early Scientists who were Christians:
Francis Bacon (1561–1626) Scientific method.
Galileo Galilei (1564–1642) (WOH) Physics, Astronomy Galileo ‘twist’ and The Galileo affair: history or heroic hagiography?
Johann Kepler (1571–1630) (WOH) Scientific astronomy
Athanasius Kircher (1601–1680) Inventor
John Wilkins (1614–1672)
Walter Charleton (1619–1707) President of the Royal College of Physicians
Blaise Pascal (1623–1662) Hydrostatics; Barometer
Sir William Petty (1623 –1687) Statistics; Scientific economics
Robert Boyle (1627–1691) (WOH) Chemistry; Gas dynamics
John Ray (1627–1705) Natural history
Isaac Barrow (1630–1677) Professor of Mathematics
Nicolas Steno (1631–1686) Stratigraphy
Thomas Burnet (1635–1715) Geology
Increase Mather (1639–1723) Astronomy
Nehemiah Grew (1641–1712) Medical Doctor, Botany
Isaac Newton (1642–1727) (WOH) Dynamics; Calculus; Gravitation law; Reflecting telescope; Spectrum of light (wrote more about the Bible than science, and emphatically affirmed a Creator. Some have accused him of Arianism, but it’s likely he held to a heterodox form of the Trinity—See Pfizenmaier, T.C., Was Isaac Newton an Arian? Journal of the History of Ideas 68(1):57–80, 1997)
Gottfried Wilhelm Leibnitz (1646–1716) Mathematician
John Flamsteed (1646–1719) Greenwich Observatory Founder; Astronomy
William Derham (1657–1735) Ecology
Cotton Mather (1662–1727) Physician
John Harris (1666–1719) Mathematician
John Woodward (1665–1728) Paleontology
William Whiston (1667–1752) Physics, Geology
John Hutchinson (1674–1737) Paleontology
Johathan Edwards (1703–1758) Physics, Meteorology
Carolus Linneaus (1707–1778) Taxonomy; Biological classification system
Jean Deluc (1727–1817) Geology
Richard Kirwan (1733–1812) Mineralogy
William Herschel (1738–1822) Galactic astronomy;
James Parkinson (1755–1824) Physician (old-earth compromiser*)
John Dalton (1766–1844) Atomic theory; Gas law
John Kidd, M.D. (1775–1851) Chemical synthetics

Proves nothing, my friend. You can't prove that any of them were legitimate theists, nor can you prove that any of them were good scientists.

Nor does this prove that science has any roots in Christianity.

For example:

"I created the iPod. I am an atheist."

Does this illustrate that the iPod has its roots in atheism?

For example:

"I created the iPod. I am an atheist."

Does this illustrate that the iPod has its roots in atheism?
No. Because God created the universe so man is fooling himself if he thinks he creates anything.

No. Because God created the universe so man is fooling himself if he thinks he creates anything.

But how do you reach that conclusion? Faith. Not logic--faith.

But how do you reach that conclusion? Faith. Not logic--faith.
Wrong. Yes faith is involved. In a logical syllogism the major premise is assumed through faith.

What is logical to one appears illogical to the other, it reminds me of that south park episode. "our logic is the greatest".


On one hand it seems logical that god created the universe, he put the first actions in motion, the creator, everything after the creation is manipulation of what is already created in existence, transformations occur.

On the other hand, it seems logical that we do not know what created the universe or how it got here. We try to study the universe and nature to grasp a better understanding of it and we reject god due to lack of solid evidence.


I see logic in both sides.


peace.

Wrong. Yes faith is involved. In a logicical syllogism the major premise is assumed through faith.

I don't know what a logicical is...I'm assuming it's a logic popsicle...anyway, faith has nothing to do with logic.

Faith is your belief in mythology. There is nothing logical about that. Faith is you believing that after our physical bodies die, we are born into a new, spiritual realm despite none of us having ever seen, heard, touched, smelt, felt, or tasted this hypothetical place. Faith is living your live by the morals born in the Bronze Age. There is no logic to faith.

I don't know what a logicical is...I'm assuming it's a logic popsicle...anyway, faith has nothing to do with logic.

Faith is your belief in mythology. There is nothing logical about that. Faith is you believing that after our physical bodies die, we are born into a new, spiritual realm despite none of us having ever seen, heard, touched, smelt, felt, or tasted this hypothetical place. Faith is living your live by the morals born in the Bronze Age. There is no logic to faith.


Faith in heaven might be the only way that your consciousness reaches heaven after death, I often think that what you truley believe happens after death will happen. Your consciousness might make some kind of quantum impression on the universe, if you believe you will not exist then you will not exist. If you believe your consciousness will live on it will live on.


Maybe your own guilty mind sends you to heaven or hell depending on your outlook. It is possible that your mind lives on after death I would like to think it does. The universe is spectacular and incredible I would not put it past existence for it to be true. the sheer fact that anything exists alone is enough to make me think anything is possible.


God does not seem so far fetched to me anymore, the more I look deeper into the complexity of life and existence the more I realise something great is going on.


peace.

I don't know what a logicical is...I'm assuming it's a logic popsicle...anyway, faith has nothing to do with logic.

Faith is your belief in mythology. There is nothing logical about that. Faith is you believing that after our physical bodies die, we are born into a new, spiritual realm despite none of us having ever seen, heard, touched, smelt, felt, or tasted this hypothetical place. Faith is living your live by the morals born in the Bronze Age. There is no logic to faith.
LOL. Logical syllogism. Look it up. You might learn something but I highly doubt it.

LOL. Logical syllogism. Look it up. You might learn something but I highly doubt it.

Well noody is going to learn anything if we ll talk to each other as if they are idiots.

You guys have opposite logical standpoints, you do not accept each others logic, but you can get your point across better if you remove sarcastic and defensive comments. People will only be angered if you take the wrong stance when approaching people.


Did you know that people firstly take notice of what your actualy saying a total of around 10-15% they take notice of the way your saying it roughly 85-90%.

So what your saying will only be taken into consideration if you present yourself in a polite and non aggressive manner. I had to take courses on people skills and communicative psycology in order to improve my teaching ability, because I was too aggressive in my methods.



peace.

Faith in heaven might be the only way that your consciousness reaches heaven after death

I appreciate your brainpower, bro, but that's like saying Santa only exists if you believe in him. C'mon. We're more adult than that, aren't we?

You're almost there, Chi. Accepting that you don't know everything does not have to lead to you caving in and believing anything. Not knowing is a pretty damn good position.

LOL. Logical syllogism. Look it up. You might learn something but I highly doubt it.

Nothing of substance? No? Didn't think so.

You've been off my ignore list for all of five minutes, and I'm already regretting it.

Originally Posted by JDawg
I don't know what a logicical is...I'm assuming it's a logic popsicle...anyway, faith has nothing to do with logic.

Faith is your belief in mythology. There is nothing logical about that. Faith is you believing that after our physical bodies die, we are born into a new, spiritual realm despite none of us having ever seen, heard, touched, smelt, felt, or tasted this hypothetical place. Faith is living your live by the morals born in the Bronze Age. There is no logic to faith. LOL. Logical syllogism. Look it up. You might learn something but I highly doubt it.
There you go.

I appreciate your brainpower, bro, but that's like saying Santa only exists if you believe in him. C'mon. We're more adult than that, aren't we?

You're almost there, Chi. Accepting that you don't know everything does not have to lead to you caving in and believing anything. Not knowing is a pretty damn good position.




Maybe santa does exist, like in southpark Episode 'imagination land'. lol

Anyway, I have read most holy books the world has to offer, I don't believe in them, any of them. I do however see the merits in the philosophy of a creator God, I have not dismissed the idea of god existing but I do dismiss all of the fluff surounding such a being.

I tolerate religions because I think they may yet have something to teach me, I like all of my learning resouces to remain open. I also think that our conscious minds are alot more than meets the eye, there is no telling what universal imprints our consciousness makes on existence.

I thought the more I learn the further away from god my understanding would take me, but it has had the opposite effect, the more I come to learn about the universe and especialy life on earth the more sense a creator makes to me.

peace.

"Proves nothing, my friend. You can't prove that any of them were legitimate theists, nor can you prove that any of them were good scientists."

depends upon what you consider "proof". I can demonstrate that they claimed to be Christians. I can demonstrate that many of them saw their faith as informing their pursuit of science and they were all great scientists by any reckoning. But somehow I feel this is not going to be good enough for you:-)

"Nor does this prove that science has any roots in Christianity."

at the very least, it proves that science was not impeded by Christianity at its inception. It proves that modern science began in the Christian west. And it proves that most of its founders were Christians (actually, it is a list I am asserting is of early Christian scientists. If you wish to pick a few at random I can look them up and give references proving their Christian faith. But even Dawkins has acknowledged this as I recall, so you may be the last atheist to get the talking points. Check your email)

"For example:
"I created the iPod. I am an atheist."
Does this illustrate that the iPod has its roots in atheism?"

Your example is not equivalent to mine. I concede that atheists have helped to advance science, there is not doubt about this. But my argument is that the origin of modern science is firmly rooted in Christianity in that it began in Christian countries by Christian founders who were in many cases outspoken in their faith and in fact, saw their faith as the reason for their pursuit of science. Here are some quotes:

Johannes Kepler [1571-1630]
Astronomy/Laws of Planetary Motion
"I had the intention of becoming a theologian...but now I see how God is, by my endeavors, also glorified in astronomy, for 'the heavens declare the glory of God.'"
"I am a Christian...I believe... only and alone in the service of Jesus Christ...In Him is all refuge, all solace."
"Let my name perish if only the name of God the Father is thereby elevated."
"[God] is the kind Creator who brought forth nature out of nothing."
__________________________________________________ _________________________

Blaise Pascal [1623-1662]
Scientist noted for work in physics, hydrostatics, vacuums; inventor of mechanical calculator
"Jesus Christ, I have separated myself from Him:
I have fled from Him, denied Him, crucified Him.
Let me never be separated from Him.
We keep hold of Him only by the ways taught in the Gospel.
Renunciation, total and sweet.
Total submission to Jesus Christ..."
{from a manuscript dated Monday November 23, 1654 and found in his own handwriting in his coat at his death}

"Knowing God without knowing our own wretchedness engenders pride. Knowing our own wretchedness without knowing God engenders despair." [Pascal - Pensees no 527]
*Also famous for "Pascal's Wager"--a powerful defense of the Christian faith
__________________________________________________ ___________________________

Robert Boyle [1627-1691]
Founder of Modern Chemistry/Gas Dynamics
Governor of Missionary organization for propagating the gospel in New England
Personally financed the translation of the Bible into Irish, Turkish, and Arabic
Author of "The Christian Virtuoso" reflecting on the study of nature for Christians
Author of Christian devotional book, "Occasional Reflections"
His will after his death financed the "Boyle Lectures" which were lectures in defense of Christianity
"From a knowledge of His work, we shall know Him"
"Christ's passion, His death, His resurrection and ascension, and all of those wonderful works which He did during His stay upon earth, in order to confirm mankind in the belief of His being God as well as man."
__________________________________________________ __________________________

Sir Isaac Newton [1642-1727]
Mathematician, Physicist
Inventor of calculus
Law of universal gravitation
Newton's three laws of motion:
1) Law of inertia 2) Force=mass*acceleration 3) Principle of action and reaction
Published "Newton's Prophecies of Daniel"
after his study and translation of the Book of Daniel [in the Bible]
"About the time of the end, a body of men will be raised up who will turn their attention to the Prophecies, and insist upon their literal interpretation, in the midst of much clamor and opposition."

"There are more sure marks of authenticity in the Bible than in any profane history."

" This thing [a scale model of our solar system] is but a puny imitation of a much grander system whose laws you know, and I am not able to convince you that this mere toy is without a designer and maker; yet you, as an atheist, profess to believe that the great original from which the design is taken has come into being without either designer or maker! Now tell me by what sort of reasoning do you reach such an incongruous conclusion?"

__________________________________________________ __________________________

Sir William Herschel [1738-1822]
Astronomist. Discovered Uranus, several nebulae, and binary stars.
First to accurately describe the Milky Way Galaxy
“All human discoveries seem to be made only for the purpose of confirming more and more
the Truths contained in the Sacred Scriptures.”
"The undevout astronomer must be mad."
__________________________________________________ ___________________


Samuel Morse [1791-1872]
Inventor of the telegraph [Morse's sketch of the railway telegraph above]
"Education without religion is in danger of substituting wild theories for the simple commonsense rules of Christianity."
First message sent by the electric telegraph:
"What hath God wrought"
{This is found in the Bible; Numbers 23:23}
{The message was sent from the Supreme Court Room in the Capitol to the railway depot at Baltimore; May 24, 1844}
{In one letter, Samuel Morse wrote "What hath GOD wrought" by capitalizing and underlining "GOD" twice!}
__________________________________________________ ____________

Michael Faraday [1791-1867]
Inventor of the electric generator and the transformer
Discovered Benzene--used to make plastics, nylon and dyes
Produced the first test tubes
Described Field Theory
*Hailed by Albert Einstein as the foundation for his own scientific discoveries*
Elder in his church for over 20 years
"Speculations? I have none. I am resting on certainties. 'I know whom I have believed and am persuaded that He is able to keep that which I have committed unto Him against that day.'"
"A Christian finds his guide in the Word of God, and commits the keeping of his soul into the hands of God. He looks for no assurance beyond what the Word can give him, and if his mind is troubled by the cares and fears which assail him, he can go nowhere but in prayer to the throne of
grace and to Scripture."
"Since peace is alone in the gift of God; and as it is He who gives it, why should we be afraid? His unspeakable gift in His beloved Son is the ground of no doubtful hope." --[1861 letter]
"The Bible, and it alone, with nothing added to it nor taken away from it by man, is the sole and sufficient guide for each individual, at all times and in all circumstances…For faith in the divinity and work of Christ is the gift of God, and the evidence of this faith is obedience to the commandment of Christ."
__________________________________________________ __________________________

Matthew Maury [1806-1873]
The "Father" of oceanography
Aided in the laying of the first trans-Atlantic cable
Maury believed Psalm 8:8, which speaks of the "paths of the seas" , and he discovered "oceanic currents"
Maury described atmospheric circulation and showed that it was already described in Ecclesiastes 1:6
Maury showed Job 28:25 to be true with respect to the weight of the winds.

"The Bible is true and science is true, and therefore each, if truly read, but proves the truth of the other."
__________________________________________________ ___________________________

James Prescott Joule [1818-1889]
Described the First Law of Thermodynamics: The Law of Conservation of Energy
[American Biochemist Isaac Asimov said that the First Law of Thermodynamics is
"one of the most important generalizations in the history of science"]
Kinetic Theory of Gases
"Joule-Thomson" effect--the basis of refrigeration
A unit of energy [work] in physics is now called a "joule"

"It is evident that an acquaintance with natural laws means no less than
an acquaintance with the mind of God therein expressed."
"Order is manifestly maintained in the universe...governed by the sovereign will of God"
"After the knowledge of, and obedience to, the will of God, the next aim must be to know something of His attributes of wisdom, power, and goodness as evidenced by His handiwork."
__________________________________________________ ___________________________

James Clerk Maxwell [1831-1879]
Statistical Thermodynamics, Field equations of electricity, magnetism, light

" No theory of evolution can be formed to account for the similarity of molecules,
for evolution necessarily implies continuous change."

"Almighty God, Who has created man in Thine own image, and made him a living soul that he might seek after Thee,
and have dominion over Thy creatures, teach us to study the works of Thy hands, that we may subdue the earth to our use, and strengthen the reason for Thy service; so to receive Thy blessed Word, that we may believe on Him Who Thou has sent, to give us the knowledge of salvation and the remission of our sins. All of which we ask in the name of the same Jesus Christ, our Lord." {prayer written by Maxwell and found amongst his notes}

Maxwell was an elder in the church he helped establish near his home.
__________________________________________________ ________________________

Louis Pasteur [1822-1895]
Father of Microbiology, developed "pasteurization"
"The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator."
"Science brings men nearer to God."
__________________________________________________ ___________________________

Jean-Henri Fabre [1823-1915]
Entomology, Biology
Author of 8-volume series "Souvenirs Entomologiques"
detailing the behavior and life history of many species

"Without Him, I understand nothing; without Him, all is darkness…Every period has its manias.
I regard Atheism as a mania. It is the malady of the age.
You could take my skin from me more easily than my faith in God."
__________________________________________________ ____________________________

Sir Joseph Lister [1827-1912]
Father of antiseptic surgery, first to wire fractures, developed dissolving sutures
"I am a believer in the fundamental doctrines of Christianity"
__________________________________________________ ______


Lord Kelvin [William Thomson] [1824-1907]
Physicist, Laws of Thermodynamics, Absolute temperature scale, inventor
"With regard to the origin of life, science...positively affirms creative power."
"Overwhelmingly strong proofs of intelligent and benevolent design lie around us...
the atheistic idea is so non-sensical that I cannot put it into words."

http://www.drivenbylimo.com.au/cairns_limo.jpg


http://www.canoaclubverona.it/images/foto/wallpaper/Cascate/Victoria%20Falls-Zimbabwe.JPG


http://jokes.stevenwongblog.com/wp-content/uploads/beautiful-landscapre-6.jpg



This does not seem like the work of random chance.

peace.

It's not random. It all falls into place based upon previous scenarios.

http://www.phys.ttu.edu/~gwen/comet%20halley%20and%20the%20milky%20way.jpg


http://rst.gsfc.nasa.gov/Sect19/earth-3d-space-tour-big.jpg


http://www.itsnature.org/Ice/images/article-images/snow_leopard1.jpg


I don't think I could ever believe it ws all just left to randomness and chance.


peace.

It's not random. It all falls into place based upon previous scenarios.

So then your saying there ws no starting point and the universe has always existed.

Cause and effect.

peace.

"This does not seem like the work of random chance."

rainbows, mountains and beautiful landscapes can of course be explained by natural causes (water vapor and light, ersosion, floods, uplift etc). But a natural explanation for the world we see around us does not in any way reduce the need for an intelligent designer to explains existance and the amazing array of "coincidences" in astrononmy, biogenesis etc.. A wise person would agree that the Creation is ample evidence for the existance of the Biblical God.

So has the biblical God has always existed?
I hope you understand this argument will go around in circles.

One idea which sounds pretty reasonable to me is that before the universe came into existence there were no laws of the universe.

So has the biblical God has always existed?
I hope you understand this argument will go around in circles.

One idea which sounds pretty reasonable to me is that before the universe came into existence there were no laws of the universe.


No laws would mean no govorning forces, without any forces there could be no action or reaction to start the universe.

Laws of physics are needed or there is nothing.

If god exists then he has always existed and time has no meaning with his existence, it is just "now" not past present or future, time is just a device we use to calculate actions/events due to motion. There is no actual force called 'Time' which exists as a non abstract.


peace.

"So has the biblical God has always existed?
I hope you understand this argument will go around in circles."

you have a choice, eternal matter or eternal God. We know that eternal matter violates observations.

"One idea which sounds pretty reasonable to me is that before the universe came into existence there were no laws of the universe."

I agree with this view. The laws apply to the universe and were given by the Creator. They do not apply to him. Science cannot study God. It is outside of its purpose. But it doesn't refute God either. Atheists love to say they are on the side of science. Of course this is because science is for the purpose of studying the material world. But science is not all there is to reality, and that is where they make their grave mistake.

There doesn't need to be anything to start it before the rule that something needs to be started by something comes into existence.

There doesn't need to be anything to start it before the rule that something needs to be started by something comes into existence.

That does not make sense, how could we put that into an actual theory?. "there was no rules, anything could happen for no pprent reason, then the universe said 'Hi' and popped into existence and brought a load of physical laws with it-self".

See that just does not do it for me.


peace.

I agree with this view. The laws apply to the universe and were given by the Creator. They do not apply to him. Science cannot study God. It is outside of its purpose. But it doesn't refute God either. Atheists love to say they are on the side of science. Of course this is because science is for the purpose of studying the material world. But science is not all there is to reality, and that is where they make their grave mistake.


But that's not the implication that people have without belief in god, he was refering to an existence void of god. So there was just "stuff" existing without laws and rules for some reason. Without a cause. Then there suddenly became laws and causes.

peace.

this begs the question. Simply because you cannot imagine a universe without laws, doen't mean that the existance of one doesn't point to a lawgiver

But that's not the implication that people have without belief in god, he was refering to an existence void of god. So there was just "stuff" existing without laws and rules for some reason. Without a cause. Then there suddenly became laws and causes.

peace.

but there is no explanation for a lawless universe suddenly becoming law abiding. As far as we know, the universe has always had laws and they work everywhere. What laws are in place outside this universe, in Gods Kingdom, is irrelevent. We cannot study in science what we cannot observe with our senses. So to say that God cannot be eternal is irrational, because God is not of this existance, nor is he a creation of it.

I understand that.

peace.

It is true that many of the first people to investigate the natural world were Christians. Christians had the monopoly on the education system, priests and monks had the free time to use their knowledge to find out more about God's planet. Gregor Mendel started the study of heredity. However, revealed scientific truths started to contradict a literal faith in the Bible.

Just because early naturalists were Christian doesn't mean anything about wether or not Christianity is true.

How can you prove that no God exists? Given an amorphous definition of God, one cannot. However, given the orthodox Christian conception of God, one can come to some conclusions about the probability of it's truth. Probability is how science works, for the most part, not definitive 100% proof one way or another.

Logic is not the monopoly of the Biblical. In fact, if the supernatural were assumed to exist, then no logic could apply to such phenomenon.


Atheism has nothing to do with a "first cause". Science has revealed that the behavior of quantum particles is often uncaused, particles and anti-particles appear and disappear in unpredictable ways. In any case, saying there needs to be a first cause and then calling that cause "God" does not support the idea that God is a personal God, and the creator of life. The first cause would logically be something simple, otherwise one would need to expain the spontaneous appearance of something with goals, wishes, likes and dislikes. Something simple like a spark is not worthy of worship.

Many atheists I encounter on the internet feel that biblical faith is somehow the opposite of science. But they are in hopeless contradiction. Furthermore, they suppose that somehow atheism is synonymous with science. Well nothing could be further from the truth.

First of all, Modern science has it roots in the Christian faith. Nearly all of the founders of the various branches modern science were in fact, bible believing Christians. That science is somehow impeded by Christianity. is a fallacy. Science has advanced Because of Christianity.

Atheism however, is not compatible with true science. Atheists have simply hijacked science and created a religion out of it. Atheists love to pretend they are "rational", but they are not. Atheism is hopelessly self contradictory! How can you prove that no God exists? If you state that the proof is with those who hold to the affirmative position, you must then prove that statement, since it is an affirmative position!

Atheism borrows logic from the Bible, since the immaterial laws of logic are inexplicible to the materialist atheist, but predicted by the biblical theist. While it is true that absolute proof of the existance of God is not possible, it is so likely as to be "self evident" to most people, which is why athesits will always be in the vast minority, as vocal as they may be.

Since science is rooted in Christianity and is based upon the principle of causality, it is incompatible with atheism, which posits no first cause. Everything which has a beginning has a cause. It is generally agreed that the universe had a cause, therefore there must be a God.

No.

Wrong. Yes faith is involved. In a logical syllogism the major premise is assumed through faith.

This hurts my head to read. I actually cried out in pain while reading this.

EmptyForceOfChi: This does not seem like the work of random chance.

Nice pictures but who said anything about random chance?

And what does your imagined god have to do with photography?

"However, revealed scientific truths started to contradict a literal faith in the Bible."

there is not such thing as 'revealed scientific truths'. Science has never contradicted the bible nor could it. Science was invented by the same author. Science left off doing science and entered into its own religion and created its own doctrines, all of which are false. No observed facts contradict anything in scripture.


"Just because early naturalists were Christian doesn't mean anything about wether or not Christianity is true."

No, it doesn't prove Christianity true, but it does take and wind out of the sails of those who claim science is at war with biblical faith. It is not, nor has it ever been. Even today thousands of scientists are happily doing science with complete faith in scripture.

"How can you prove that no God exists? Given an amorphous definition of God, one cannot. However, given the orthodox Christian conception of God, one can come to some conclusions about the probability of it's truth. Probability is how science works, for the most part, not definitive 100% proof one way or another."

If we are talking probability than the probability that the biblical God does not exist is near zero. The probability that life arose by chance is a statistical impossibility. The probability that many biblical prophecies I could offer were fulfilled by chance is zero. The likelihood that a book could have been written by 40 authors on several continents with a consistant theme throughout is zero (Acharya's conspiracy theories aside). The probability that the resurrection miracle did not take place is zero.

An atheist is a liar by definition. Atheism is nothing but a parasite of Christianity. Atheists only love science to the degree it supports their faith, and throw out the rest. We reject no data in science, we reject only the false assumptions and conclusions of atheists and liberal theists.

"Logic is not the monopoly of the Biblical. In fact, if the supernatural were assumed to exist, then no logic could apply to such phenomenon."

if only a materialist universe exists, immaterial universal laws of logic would not exist. It is a contradiction. Whenever an atheist opens his/her mouth, they are in self contradiction.

"Atheism has nothing to do with a "first cause". Science has revealed that the behavior of quantum particles is often uncaused, particles and anti-particles appear and disappear in unpredictable ways."

stop! you don't know what you are talking about once again. If causality is not true, then there is no basis for science at all!

"In any case, saying there needs to be a first cause and then calling that cause "God" does not support the idea that God is a personal God, and the creator of life."

That is a separate issue. Many philosophers of note would disagree with you here, but it is not necessary to prove all of the attributes of God to demonstrate God exists and is compatible with the Judeo Christian God and incompatible with atheism and other religions of note.

"The first cause would logically be something simple, otherwise one would need to expain the spontaneous appearance of something with goals, wishes, likes and dislikes. Something simple like a spark is not worthy of worship."

The cause of almost infinite complexity must be infinitely complex. There is no reason to posit a "simple God". One cannot explain something in science which transcends our existance, so there is no need or ability to do so. But we can know some things through natural revelation and other things from the bible.

Nice pictures but who said anything about random chance?

And what does your imagined god have to do with photography?

Note: Swarm is a witty guy and 90% of the time this is all he has to offer. He knows witty remarks do not an argument make but he is intellectually lazy (perhaps from years of illegal substances) and generally doesn't wish to make an argument at all, thus the witicisms.

Swarm, I see that the tribe imploded and now you have spread your virus to this forum. Perhaps Changeling is the reason for the implosion. I remember back in my religion course at MSU my liberal prof began spouting all of his "higher criticism" nonsense. I went to him and asked for equal time to offer a traditional apologetic. He said "I know what you are trying to do and you will not get away with this on my watch". That night he had a heart attack and died. He is a believer now no doubt. For my part, the next prof, who was just as liberal, allowed my pastor to present the evidences for the Christian faith to a receptive student audience. You see Swarm, inexplicable things do occur in this amazing world we cohabit. Coincidence, maybe, or maybe not.

So here we are, you, changeling and I at it again. Who would of thunk it?;)

No.



This hurts my head to read. I actually cried out in pain while reading this.

don't worry, once the demons of deception leave you will be able to think clearly again:-) Just a joke moderator, I am not preaching, really I'm not!

Laws are just words we use to describe regularities we observe in the word around us. They have no bearing on the universe itself nor is there any "enforcement."

There is no need for any "law giver" or "creator" and the xtian god is just made up.

The "random chance" bit is just something theists chant to make themselves feel good about their ignorance about the workings of the world.

there is not such thing as 'revealed scientific truths'. Science has never contradicted the bible nor could it. Science was invented by the same author. Science left off doing science and entered into its own religion and created its own doctrines, all of which are false. No observed facts contradict anything in scripture.
An atheist is a liar by definition. Atheism is nothing but a parasite of Christianity. Atheists only love science to the degree it supports their faith, and throw out the rest. We reject no data in science, we reject only the false assumptions and conclusions of atheists and liberal theists.


If science really doesn't conflict with the Bible, then why are a lot of Christians so upset about evolution being taught in schools. Personally I don't think it conflicts, but many fundamentalists disagree. There is only a conflict if you take the Bible (creation story) literally, which I find difficult to do because Genesis is written like a children's fairytale.

I don't think atheism can actually be defined as "liar". I thought it simply meant "no belief or faith". Atheism has nothing to do with Christianity. Like most people's faith in Santa Claus it either is or it isn't, you either believe something or you don't. Like how I lost my faith in Santa Claus, I didn't choose to become an Atheist it just happened. While it is true that I love science, I know that it can not answer all questions. While some atheist cling science as if it were a religion I don't and I don't see how that makes me a liar.:bugeye:

If science really doesn't conflict with the Bible, then why are a lot of Christians so upset about evolution being taught in schools.
Because Christians don't want their children brainwashed by Bolshevik fundamentalists who don't believe in DNA.

If evolution is persuasive and true, why are atheists so afraid of Intelligent Design being taught alongside evolution?

Because Christians don't want their children brainwashed by Bolshevik fundamentalists who don't believe in DNA.

If evolution is persuasive and true, why are atheists so afraid of Intelligent Design being taught alongside evolution?

I don't know. I don't think it does any harm. Teach your kids what you believe and they get different opinions in school and by the time they are grown they should have reached their own conclusion of what they believe be it, evolution, creationism or both. I was taught the Intelligent Design method in 6th and 7th grade and the sad part is it tends to leave out some science, when i took STAR and CAT6 testing the following year I did very poorly because a lot of questions they asked my curriculum had not covered and it put me at a disadvantage. The only conflict I think might arise with intelligent design is people having different religious beliefs. So as long as the intelligent being remains anonymous I don't see too much harm in it. I don't get what parents are so afraid of anyway.

OilIsMastery
why are atheists so afraid of Intelligent Design being taught alongside evolution?

The aren't afraid. They just don't want your religious dogma in a class on science. Feel free to teach it in something appropriate like modern mythology.

Also you should realize you aren't the only religion with a creation myth. Is only fair that the other myths get equal time.

But science is hard enough. There just isn't time for your mytholgy.

CutsieMarie89
I don't get what parents are so afraid of anyway.

Here is your answer:

I did very poorly because a lot of questions they asked my curriculum had not covered and it put me at a disadvantage.

Religious dogma doesn't teach you what you need to know to do science.

Many atheists I encounter on the internet feel that biblical faith is somehow the opposite of science.

I am guessing you are interpreting some kind of 'delusion' vs. 'reality' poles.


But they are in hopeless contradiction. Furthermore, they suppose that somehow atheism is synonymous with science. Well nothing could be further from the truth.

I've never met an atheist who equates lack of belief in fantasy with the study of objective reality.


First of all, Modern science has it roots in the Christian faith.

Incorrect. Science was around long before Christianity was. Science has it's roots in observation, thinking, and comprehension.


Nearly all of the founders of the various branches modern science were in fact, bible believing Christians.

Science began before Christianity dude.


That science is somehow impeded by Christianity. is a fallacy.

You mean people of science weren't accused of heresy when discovery contradicted doctrine?


Science has advanced Because of Christianity.

Incorrect. Science has advanced because of education, human curiousity, talent, technology, and hard work.


Atheism however, is not compatible with true science.

Oooook.


Atheists have simply hijacked science and created a religion out of it.

That whole sentence makes no sense.


Atheists love to pretend they are "rational", but they are not. Atheism is hopelessly self contradictory!

Oooook again.


How can you prove that no God exists? If you state that the proof is with those who hold to the affirmative position, you must then prove that statement, since it is an affirmative position!

People can't prove some generic loose idea of 'God' does not exist; however, ALL human claims of a 'God' existing can be easily shown as false.


Atheism borrows logic from the Bible, since the immaterial laws of logic are inexplicible to the materialist atheist, but predicted by the biblical theist.

Logic is a mental abstraction of how reality relates to itself. Reality is quite physical.


While it is true that absolute proof of the existance of God is not possible, it is so likely as to be "self evident" to most people, which is why athesits will always be in the vast minority, as vocal as they may be.

We'll be a minority until two things happen:

* Knowledge and education render the paranormal an embarassment.
* A religion is formed that psychologically satiates people the same way religion does today, but without the paranormal delusion.


Since science is rooted in Christianity and is based upon the principle of causality, it is incompatible with atheism, which posits no first cause.

Atheism is a lack of belief in 'God'. That's it. It's not a theory, it's not a philosophy, etc. It is a lack of belief for one single assertion.


Everything which has a beginning has a cause.

As far as we know.


It is generally agreed that the universe had a cause,...

Generally.


...therefore there must be a God.

Therefore there must be a cause. We don't know what it is but we know better than to fill in a gap of knowledge with imaginary anthropomophic life forms. Most models of reality (which go well beyond the confines of our universe) show it to have no start and no end. It simply is.

We cannot study in science what we cannot observe with our senses It's routine. Unless you can see X-rays and quanta and viruses and electrons and magnetic fields and four dimensional spacetime manifolds and so forth.

Scientists even study things, like probabilities, that have no material existence at all.

I sometimes wonder about the odd propensity of the dogmatically theistic to make really jaw-droppingly bizarre declarations about what science is, what it can and can't do, what scientists believe, what this or that theory says, and so forth. What I wonder is: do they ever double take? Do they ever reread what they just wrote, and have their "Oh c'mon" alarm bell go off, and delete it ?

I was taught the Intelligent Design method in 6th and 7th grade How on this earth did a "science" class manage to spend two years on Intelligent Design ?

They just don't want your religious dogma in a class on science.
DNA is religious dogma now? Wow.

iceaura
How on this earth did a "science" class manage to spend two years on Intelligent Design?

I'm guessing this wasn't a public school, or maybe she's from Kansas. :o

They must teach people about DNA in Kansas.

OilIsMastery
DNA is religious dogma now? Wow.

In the hands of creationists, yep it sure is.

Besides what proof do you have that Krishna created the universe any way?

I don't care what name you call the First Cause. Call it Allah for all I care. For me it's enough to observe it's effects.

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/0210/Andromeda_gendler_s60.jpg

Therefore there must be a cause. We don't know that it is but we know better than to fill in a gap of knowledge with imaginary anthropomophic life forms. Most models of reality (which go well beyond the confines of our universe) show it to have no start and no end. It simply is.

Completely agree
honestly, and ill probably be hated by some people for saying this, i think that "god", in any religion, was just created in order to explain things in an easy way and was a way for people to accept things they couldnt understand... its also a way to teach good morals
But i mean cmon, out of every religion that has ever been created... how can YOUR religion, (the religion of whoever is reading this), be the correct one?
Impossible, it is only there as a place-holder, and can only take you as far as having a happy life, (which is fine for some people... but for me, id rather know why something is happening rather than just leaving it up to some made-up creature)

But i mean cmon, out of every religion that has ever been created... how can YOUR religion, (the religion of whoever is reading this), be the correct one?
Good question. Atheists are religious bigots so it's no wonder they can't coexist peacefully with people who think differently than they do.

who said i cant coexist peacefully? thats your own words... i dont give a damn what you believe
I actually think religion is a good thing.. its good to teach epople good morals, when did i say it was bad??? Our world would be chaos if it didnt have religion, but that doesnt mean i believe in a god either... i just believe in good morals

make sense?

i dont give a damn what you believe
Well you're one of the few...:D

I actually think religion is a good thing.. its good to teach epople good morals, when did i say it was bad??? Our world would be chaos if it didnt have religion, but that doesnt mean i believe in a god either... i just believe in good morals

make sense?
Amen.

This is exactly what I was talking about.


Amen.

then im glad we can agree :)

goose
its good to teach epople good morals

If only it did. But its authoritarian, rule based morals which are dependant on big daddy god for enforcement actually leave people morally weak. It fosters a cheating and legalistic mentality and totally breaks down as the person realizes that no one is watching after all.

Teaching how to arrive to moral conclusions on your own and giving real reasons for why a moral position is to be valued is a far better process to teach morals.

there is not such thing as 'revealed scientific truths'. Science has never contradicted the bible nor could it. Science was invented by the same author. Science left off doing science and entered into its own religion and created its own doctrines, all of which are false. No observed facts contradict anything in scripture.

I don't know where to begin with this mess, so I'll start by saying that you're wrong on almost every count. Firstly, there are many phenomenon in the Bible that we know are scientifically impossible. Second, most of the stuff in the Bible that would need to be contradicted has already been contradicted...by the Bible. There are plenty of contradictory things within that text, if you'd take the time to read it.

Also, science is not a religion. I know that you theists use this argument because the only way to make science sound evil is to portray it as a rival faith, but it's simply not true. All science is, as you well know, is the practice of studying things; a method, not a faith. There are no doctrines.

No, it doesn't prove Christianity true, but it does take and wind out of the sails of those who claim science is at war with biblical faith. It is not, nor has it ever been. Even today thousands of scientists are happily doing science with complete faith in scripture.

I agree that science and faith have no need to be at odds. The problem, however, is when some of the faiths that take the Bible very literally attack science, such as their wanting evolution banned from schools. Science does not try to hurt faith--it's the other way around, and it has always been that way. Yes, there are plenty of scientists that are of faith, and that's a good thing, because it proves that there is no conflict of interest there.

If we are talking probability than the probability that the biblical God does not exist is near zero.

If you want to be taken seriously, you can't make claims like that. How could you possibly come up with that number? Near zero? Come on.

The probability that life arose by chance is a statistical impossibility.

False. False, false, false. First, who says life happens by chance? The building blocks for life are found all over the universe, so their coming together in a hospitable place and forming life should not be surprising. That is why so many scientists expect that there is life elsewhere in the universe; all the pieces are out there, they just need to find a place to hook up.

The probability that many biblical prophecies I could offer were fulfilled by chance is zero. The likelihood that a book could have been written by 40 authors on several continents with a consistant theme throughout is zero (Acharya's conspiracy theories aside). The probability that the resurrection miracle did not take place is zero.

All of this is false. There is not one shred of evidence to support any claim you've made here.

An atheist is a liar by definition. Atheism is nothing but a parasite of Christianity. Atheists only love science to the degree it supports their faith, and throw out the rest. We reject no data in science, we reject only the false assumptions and conclusions of atheists and liberal theists.

You're preaching, and not providing a shred of evidence to support your claim. And yes, you do reject data in science. Primarily evolution. Or have you forgotten already?

if only a materialist universe exists, immaterial universal laws of logic would not exist. It is a contradiction. Whenever an atheist opens his/her mouth, they are in self contradiction.

Who says immaterial laws of logic exist?

stop! you don't know what you are talking about once again. If causality is not true, then there is no basis for science at all!

You argue causality, but your answer is a god with no cause...:bugeye:

That is a separate issue. Many philosophers of note would disagree with you here, but it is not necessary to prove all of the attributes of God to demonstrate God exists and is compatible with the Judeo Christian God and incompatible with atheism and other religions of note.

Despite your statistical fabrications, there is no way to prove your god exists, or that any god exists. You can't even prove that a god is capable of existing.

The cause of almost infinite complexity must be infinitely complex. There is no reason to posit a "simple God". One cannot explain something in science which transcends our existance, so there is no need or ability to do so. But we can know some things through natural revelation and other things from the bible.

Your entire argument is the same as any other ignorant theist's. You haven't the first clue of how science works, or what science has found, and yet you speak on it as if you were an expert. After that, you argue in contradictions, such as your argument for causality that results in a god that has no cause, and the idea that you reject no findings in science, yet your faith does not agree with evolution. Then you offer up these totally false statistical probabilities that you completely made up to help suit your paper-thin, first-grader argument.

My advice is to grow up and try to understand the side you wish to argue against before you start name-calling. You look like a fool when you do not.

Laws are just words we use to describe regularities we observe in the word around us. They have no bearing on the universe itself nor is there any "enforcement."

There is no need for any "law giver" or "creator" and the xtian god is just made up.

The "random chance" bit is just something theists chant to make themselves feel good about their ignorance about the workings of the world.

"The laws of science are various established scientific laws, or physical laws as they are sometimes called, that are considered universal and invariable facts of the physical world."

Just try jumping out of an airplane without a parachute and see if there is no "enforcement"

Your view that the Christian God is made up is simply an opinion which rejects a large amount a data to the contrary and can be dismissed as such.

"I'll start by saying that you're wrong on almost every count."

perhaps we will find out why, let's read on.

"Firstly, there are many phenomenon in the Bible that we know are scientifically impossible."

all miracles would be "scientifically impossible" but this alone does not prove they didn't occur. You must first assume that no God exists and the authors of the bible are telling fibs to arrive at this conclusion.

"Second, most of the stuff in the Bible that would need to be contradicted has already been contradicted...by the Bible. There are plenty of contradictory things within that text, if you'd take the time to read it."


I have read it many times and do read it daily. I have also examined the so called contradictions and found them to be false. You could do this yourself if you simply read the bible rather than silly anti Christian web sites.

"Also, science is not a religion. I know that you theists use this argument because the only way to make science sound evil is to portray it as a rival faith, but it's simply not true."

I have never said science is a religion. I stated that atheists have hijacked true science and made a religion of it, scientism. They know that the purpose of science is to study the natural world, then proclaim that the natural world is all that exists because that is what science was designed to study! The reasoning is circular. In addition, they deny science facts which don't support their bias.

"All science is, as you well know, is the practice of studying things; a method, not a faith. There are no doctrines."

All of science is based upon presuppositions which we must take for granted and cannot prove. This does make it a faith game. If you are not aware of this, don't fret, you are not alone.

"I agree that science and faith have no need to be at odds. The problem, however, is when some of the faiths that take the Bible very literally attack science, such as their wanting evolution banned from schools."

I don't want evolution banned from schools nor do I know anyone who does. What we would, but do not ever expect, is that there would be an open and honest evaluation of the weaknesses of the hypothesis rather than the current "religious" devotion to a theory so devoid of facts that it is virtually worthless. We would prefer that debunked myths no longer be included in textbooks written to impressionable children such as the peppered moth hoax, the vestigial organ myth and the ontogony recapitulates phylogeny myth. All of these have been debunked by scientists who are not creationist yet remain in science texts as "proof" of evolution. These lies make us suspect that evolution is not just a scientific hypothesis but a religious doctrine. In addition, we would like teachers to acknowledge that no one has every seen evolution, ameoba to man, take place and thus it is not a scientific theory but rather a belief about the past held to ardently and with fervour, by people in the present.

"Science does not try to hurt faith--it's the other way around, and it has always been that way."

this is a lie you cannot support. No one is going to listen to your Galaleo myth any longer nor the stem celled myth. This is all you got son and it doesn't add up to an argument that religion hates science. Science was founded within religion by religionists because of religion. That can and has been defended by me and others and even on these pages.

"Yes, there are plenty of scientists that are of faith, and that's a good thing, because it proves that there is no conflict of interest there."

You just contradicted yourself, but because I am generous I will overlook it this time.


"If you want to be taken seriously, you can't make claims like that. How could you possibly come up with that number? Near zero? Come on."

It is easy, and I have already done so. Since you are not reading along let me repeat. The odds of abiogenesis can be calculated and have been by evolutionists themselves. The chances are zero. Thus, the odds that that naturalism is false are infinitely high and the odds that supernaturalism is false is infinitely low. In addition, Probability studies have been done on unambiguous biblical prophecies which prove its divine inspiration beyond the doubt of any honest seeker (sorry, but that would not be you).


“ The probability that life arose by chance is a statistical impossibility. ”

"False. False, false, false. First, who says life happens by chance? The building blocks for life are found all over the universe, so their coming together in a hospitable place and forming life should not be surprising. That is why so many scientists expect that there is life elsewhere in the universe; all the pieces are out there, they just need to find a place to hook up."

hahahaha, you are so funny. Of course you would expect it, because it is already here. What an amazing prophet you are:-) Having all of the building blocks laying around doesn't seem to get them into a meaningful pattern with my kids. Perhaps you can explain to me how this works. And while you are at it, let me predict that life will never be found anywhere else in the universe. The odds are infinitely small that I will ever be found to be wrong.


“ The probability that many biblical prophecies I could offer were fulfilled by chance is zero. The likelihood that a book could have been written by 40 authors on several continents with a consistant theme throughout is zero (Acharya's conspiracy theories aside). The probability that the resurrection miracle did not take place is zero. ”

"All of this is false. There is not one shred of evidence to support any claim you've made here."

You are wearying me with your nothing statements.


"You're preaching, and not providing a shred of evidence to support your claim. And yes, you do reject data in science. Primarily evolution. Or have you forgotten already?"

I don't know what "preaching" is. I was warned against this but when I inquired they failed to define it. Apparently the mods here don't know either. But I would say all of what you write is preaching as you substantiate nothing at all. Evolution is not data. I reject no data. I reject the hypothesis because it is unsupported by the data. I have given concrete reasons for this, and I will do so again for you. Provide an example where scientists have observed a sequence of information gaining mutations in the germ cell on any organism. The world should be crawling with these little critters if your fairytale were true, but so far, we have not found any (well, maybe one, but no one here has even been able to offer that one so why should I give away any ground:-))


“ if only a materialist universe exists, immaterial universal laws of logic would not exist. It is a contradiction. Whenever an atheist opens his/her mouth, they are in self contradiction. ”

"Who says immaterial laws of logic exist?"

Nearly everyone, especially scientists. But don't worry, you are not included in either category. Science is based upon the logical law of universal non contradiction. This is a law of logic. It is not physical and not necessary, but it is true as far as we know, in every part of the universe. They exist and biblical theists would predict this. (And atheist might predict it too, backward predictions is the only predictions they make with any degree of accuracy:-) ) The point is that logic, refutes materialistic atheism, as does first cause and a host of other arguments. Meanwhile, all atheists have is their 'lack of faith' in deities, what a joke:rolleyes:


“ You argue causality, but your answer is a god with no cause..."

only two options exist, eternal matter or eternal God. Eternal matter is observationally impossible since we can see that the universe has had a beginning. While our minds may not be able to comprehend an eternal God, it doesn't make it impossible. God transcends our universe with its laws and rules.


“Despite your statistical fabrications, there is no way to prove your god exists, or that any god exists. You can't even prove that a god is capable of existing."

who said anything about "proving" scientifically that God exists. I have already acknowledged the obvious. Science is inductive, it cannot prove anything! I feel no need to prove God to you. I only feel that only a fool disbelieves in God in light of the obvious evidences.

"My advice is to grow up and try to understand the side you wish to argue against before you start name-calling. You look like a fool when you do not."

Looking like a fool is preferable to being one.

Because Christians don't want their children brainwashed by Bolshevik fundamentalists who don't believe in DNA.

If evolution is persuasive and true, why are atheists so afraid of Intelligent Design being taught alongside evolution?

I wasn't aware there was anything to teach with regards to ID. I'd be quite happy for my son to be taught ID alongside evolution. It would be very unbalanced since you could spend your entire life learning about evolution......yet ID can be covered with three words "God did it" (insert your particular definition of what God is, if you like).

Science doesn't say that the natural world is all that exists, it says that the natural world is all that has been shown to exist. Until the supernatural has been shown to be possible, and any reasonable naturalistic explanation has been ruled out, then belief in the supernatural is not logical. The Bible is full of contraditions.

Here is one: The Bible says not to kill.

Yet:
2:23 And he went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head.
2:24 And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them.

In this passage, God sends bears to tear up little children that mocked Jesus. Is this what Christians are supposed to do?

Teaching how to arrive to moral conclusions on your own and giving real reasons for why a moral position is to be valued is a far better process to teach morals.

But you miss-understand
when i first read the bible, i knew what i was reading was nothing more than a fairytale... but because i realised this, i only read it with the purpose to learn good morals, not basing the morals on a higher being, but creating my own reason for having certain morals that i saw being expressed in the bible.

You are only mis-led if you read it for face-value, believe everthing that you read

"The Bible is full of contraditions.

Here is one: The Bible says not to kill.

Yet:
2:23 And he went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head.
2:24 And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them.

In this passage, God sends bears to tear up little children that mocked Jesus. Is this what Christians are supposed to do?"

It was not Jesus, but Elisha if you will recall.

The clear reference to "thou shalt not kill" is to people, specifically at the time, Jewish people. And the word kill is equivalent to "murder" in context. It does not prevent self defense nor does it prevent God from taking the lives of wrong doers."

There is no contradiction. Elisha didn't kill them, God did.

That seems to be a contradiction. If God doesn't follow his own laws, why should we?

Dan,

you wrote:

"hahahaha, you are so funny. Of course you would expect it, because it is already here. What an amazing prophet you are:-) Having all of the building blocks laying around doesn't seem to get them into a meaningful pattern with my kids. Perhaps you can explain to me how this works. And while you are at it, let me predict that life will never be found anywhere else in the universe. The odds are infinitely small that I will ever be found to be wrong."

Are you sure you want to go there ? What is your definition of life on other planets ?
I think you may have painted yourself into a corner on that one. So if life is proven to exist on other planets then you will admit that your whole premise is wrong. I have a feeling that when it IS found you will just change the approach.

You obviously have intelligence. However I don't feel that you are looking at the history of religion and dealing with the challenges science has placed on the belief in such.

Do you believe in dinosaurs ? If we were made in gods image why would he screw around with them. Why would the original authors be so out of touch to include such social taboos as slavery in a book that is the word of god ? Unless you believe that god approves of slavery.

You are swiping at some of the missing pieces in the science world and not asking yourself the tough questions that any intellectually honest person would. Which is asking the tough questions of your own belief system. Have you actually done that ? if so, can you tell me any one thing that you came across that you feel is wrong or does not make sense ?

The most important and laughable part of all this discussion is the belief that science has found all the answers at this point in time. It's hard to realize how insignificant we are, but you will be here for about 50-100 years in time, think of what science has resolved in the last 300 years, now imagine what we will learn in the next 500-1000.

Thanks for listening.
JA

I'm guessing this wasn't a public school, or maybe she's from Kansas. :o

Lol. No it wasn't a public school I went to private schools all the way up until 8th grade and then promptly returned to private school for 9th. A christian school that had its roots in the Mennonite Brethren Church, and our science books were called stuff like God's World or something like that and history basically taught the Bible mixed in with some cultural stuff. The only unbiased subjects were math and PE. And no I'm not from Kansas, I'm from one of the most liberal states in the USA, California. There isn't even a debate about evolution vs intelligent design here. I was surprised to find out other states were still arguing about it. I kind of thought it had died with the Scope's monkey trial.

"Are you sure you want to go there ? What is your definition of life on other planets ?"

growth, metabolism, reproduction, cell wall. I would exclude obligate parasites and acellular organisms from the definition but would not expect to find them either. Sure, I don't mind going there at all.

"I think you may have painted yourself into a corner on that one. So if life is proven to exist on other planets then you will admit that your whole premise is wrong. I have a feeling that when it IS found you will just change the approach."

I don't know that it would shake my faith to the degree that I would admit my whole premise is wrong because it would not prove abiogenesis, but I would award points to your side. I would also award points to your side if you could create a living cell in a laboratory because then it would at least be theoretically possible, under perfect conditions, to have happened in the beginning. To date, this has never been done and I don't believe it ever will be.

"You obviously have intelligence. However I don't feel that you are looking at the history of religion and dealing with the challenges science has placed on the belief in such."

I have looked and am aware of the history of religion. I have no problem blaming religion where religion needs to be blamed. The inquisitions of the catholics where unmitigated evil. The witchcraft trials and murders were an outragous evil. John Calvins crimes against humanity are to be condemned. There are many other examples as well. But what you need to understand is that, on balance, and compared to the good Christianity has brought to the world, these abberations, as abhorrant as they certainly are relatively small. in addition, notable atheists have exaggerated these events and others to created a hostility toward believers in the bible that is completely out of proportion to and crimes their forebears have committed, while ignoring and dismissing the far greater crimes against humanity committed by committed secularists!

Here is the deal, read carefully. When a Christian behaves in this manner, he/she is operating outside of the teaching of their founder, Jesus Christ. When an atheist believer behaves like this, they are operating completely withing their world view because in spite of what atheists say, the possess no objective morality of any kind which cannot be despensed with if the situation demands it.

"Do you believe in dinosaurs ? If we were made in gods image why would he screw around with them."

of course i believe in dinosaurs. They are mentioned in almost all cultures of the world as having coexisted with man. They are also mentioned in several places in the bible.

"Why would the original authors be so out of touch to include such social taboos as slavery in a book that is the word of god ? Unless you believe that god approves of slavery."

I would love to take this up in a separate thread. But to be concise here, Slavery was permitted in ancient Israel under strict guidlines which offered protections and humane treatment to slaves unknown by other nations at that time. Slave trading was forbidden in the New Testament and the seed of the abolition movement in Great Britain and the U.S. were are found in the teachings of Jesus and Paul. Which explains why Christians led the fight against slavery in both countries. Atheists didn't lead this fight, Christians did! Atheists didn't lead the fight for civil rights, Christians did. Athiests didn't lead the fight against poverty, Christians did.

"You are swiping at some of the missing pieces in the science world and not asking yourself the tough questions that any intellectually honest person would. Which is asking the tough questions of your own belief system. Have you actually done that ? if so, can you tell me any one thing that you came across that you feel is wrong or does not make sense?"

I am not afraid to be confronted with the apparent weakness of my faith in the Bible. I have accepted the hypothesis that it is true from the very first verse and defended this hypothesis on threads like this and in person with foes for over 30 years. I have found that it is completely defensible. I occasionally get challenged and temporarly stumped, but I dig in deeper until I answer my own "tough questions". Most of what I hear these days are simply re-statments of what I have already heard and refuted many times before.

"The most important and laughable part of all this discussion is the belief that science has found all the answers at this point in time. It's hard to realize how insignificant we are, but you will be here for about 50-100 years in time, think of what science has resolved in the last 300 years, now imagine what we will learn in the next 500-1000."

what is laughable to me is that guys like you feel because we reject fairytales like evolution that we reject science. I love science and celebrate the good things science has brought to the world. But I see it as a tool given by God for the good of man, not something to worship or the only way of knowing.

"Thanks for listening."

np

"Second, most of the stuff in the Bible that would need to be contradicted has already been contradicted...by the Bible. There are plenty of contradictory things within that text, if you'd take the time to read it."


I have read it many times and do read it daily. I have also examined the so called contradictions and found them to be false. You could do this yourself if you simply read the bible rather than silly anti Christian web sites.


Just because you change the meaning of words The Bible uses in order to avoid contradiction doesn't change the fact that it still exists.

NP,

I appreciate the straight answers.

I feel you are being very honest and have challenged yourself with regards to your beliefs.

However, I disagree with many of your responses but don't believe you will change your views.

I completely agree with you on one major point but disagree with the factor that you are implying seperates the two.

As you pointed out, just because someone is a Christian, does not make them moral. They can claim to be but act in no way that the bible teaches. I would say that there are decent people and bad people and all sorts in between and that religion is not the main factor in the outcome. I know many decent Christians, Jews, Muslims, Agnostics and Athiests. I also know some bastards of each.

I feel the only answer from me to you is that I will respect your beliefs even though I don't believe the same way.

Take care,
JA

CutsieMarie89
A christian school that had its roots in the Mennonite Brethren Church, and our science books were called stuff like God's World or something like that and history basically taught the Bible mixed in with some cultural stuff.

I can see why you had trouble with the tests.

NP,

I appreciate the straight answers.

I feel you are being very honest and have challenged yourself with regards to your beliefs.

However, I disagree with many of your responses but don't believe you will change your views.

I completely agree with you on one major point but disagree with the factor that you are implying seperates the two.

As you pointed out, just because someone is a Christian, does not make them moral. They can claim to be but act in no way that the bible teaches. I would say that there are decent people and bad people and all sorts in between and that religion is not the main factor in the outcome. I know many decent Christians, Jews, Muslims, Agnostics and Athiests. I also know some bastards of each.

I feel the only answer from me to you is that I will respect your beliefs even though I don't believe the same way.

Take care,
JA

You are close enough to what I believe the truth to be that I will not bother to critique this post. If most of your position thought like this the world wouldn't need obnoxious in your face "New Christians" like me to level the playing field.

Just because you change the meaning of words The Bible uses in order to avoid contradiction doesn't change the fact that it still exists.

that is not how it works. In order for a true contradiction to hold there must be no way to reconcile it in the text. Anti's don't try to reconcile contradictions, they just through them against the wall to see if they stick. But they do not stick because the bible is completely defensible. You have chosen to reject the bible and then use false logic and false contradictions to bolster your hatred for Christianity. Young naive believers may fall for your childish tactics, but not on my threads.

Lol. No it wasn't a public school I went to private schools all the way up until 8th grade and then promptly returned to private school for 9th. A christian school that had its roots in the Mennonite Brethren Church, and our science books were called stuff like God's World or something like that and history basically taught the Bible mixed in with some cultural stuff. The only unbiased subjects were math and PE. And no I'm not from Kansas, I'm from one of the most liberal states in the USA, California. There isn't even a debate about evolution vs intelligent design here. I was surprised to find out other states were still arguing about it. I kind of thought it had died with the Scope's monkey trial.

Clearly you're private education was deficient if you were taught the scopes "monkey" trial settled the issue of ID. The trial was not even about the subject. Likely all evolutionists and atheists know only the fictitious movie, Inherit the Wind, which had nothing to do with the trial and amounted to a propaganda tool.

Nice pictures but who said anything about random chance?

And what does your imagined god have to do with photography?

What imagined god, I dont have a god.

peace.

all miracles would be "scientifically impossible" but this alone does not prove they didn't occur. You must first assume that no God exists and the authors of the bible are telling fibs to arrive at this conclusion.


Both of which are very possible.

I have read it many times and do read it daily. I have also examined the so called contradictions and found them to be false. You could do this yourself if you simply read the bible rather than silly anti Christian web sites.

I've gone to Catholic school, I've read the Bible, and I've done the work. How you could deny these contradictions...I guess it proves what depths you'll sink to in order to bolster your argument. It certainly hurts your credibility to deny them.

I have never said science is a religion. I stated that atheists have hijacked true science and made a religion of it, scientism. They know that the purpose of science is to study the natural world, then proclaim that the natural world is all that exists because that is what science was designed to study! The reasoning is circular. In addition, they deny science facts which don't support their bias.

First, you did say science was religion. Second, science does not say that the natural world is all that exists. I don't know what backwoods, hillbilly scientists you've been speaking to, but science can only study what it can see, so therefore it can't comment on the supernatural. Thirdly, they do not deny "science facts" that don't support what they believe. That's how science works; things change, and scientists have their minds changed. That's why theories rise and fall out of favor as the evidence goes. Some stay up because there isn't sufficient evidence to refute them.

I'm curious to see which "science facts" mainstream science has denied despite overwhelming evidence. I know I'm probably asking too much, but...care to give an example?

All of science is based upon presuppositions which we must take for granted and cannot prove.

El Wrongo.

I don't want evolution banned from schools nor do I know anyone who does. What we would, but do not ever expect, is that there would be an open and honest evaluation of the weaknesses of the hypothesis rather than the current "religious" devotion to a theory so devoid of facts that it is virtually worthless.

Of course, you obviously don't know the first thing about evolution, or you'd know how utterly nonsensical that statement is. I mean, I just don't know how to talk to you after you've proven yourself to be ignorant of the subject...I wish I could help, but since you refuse to study it, then what the hell are we supposed to talk about?

I guess I'll just try to say that mainstream science accepts evolution as a whole. We know that evolution happens. There are some arguments over some of the mechanics, I suppose, but there is no controversy within the scientific community. The only controversy is one created by creationists (ironic) who want it banned from schools. And please, don't pretend that you don't know anyone who wants evolution banned. That is where the creationist movement first got their feet wet. Once they realized that evolution wasn't going to be removed until a better option was offered, they got on the equally-ridiculous "equal time" platform.

We would prefer that debunked myths no longer be included in textbooks written to impressionable children such as the peppered moth hoax, the vestigial organ myth and the ontogony recapitulates phylogeny myth. All of these have been debunked by scientists who are not creationist yet remain in science texts as "proof" of evolution. These lies make us suspect that evolution is not just a scientific hypothesis but a religious doctrine. In addition, we would like teachers to acknowledge that no one has every seen evolution, ameoba to man, take place and thus it is not a scientific theory but rather a belief about the past held to ardently and with fervour, by people in the present.


Again, you simply display your complete and total ignorance of the subject. All you know if it (surprise, surprise) is the standard, run of the mill, Creationist talking points. None of which has any basis in reality.

But what I find funniest about this whole thing is how you religious folks harp on the fact that no one has ever witnessed long-term evolution first-hand, while you fail to realize the work that goes in to reaching that conclusion. You and your kind just figure that scientists guessed that this is how it worked, because there couldn't possibly be any way of figuring that kind of thing out without actually seeing it...is there?

Yes, there is.

this is a lie you cannot support. No one is going to listen to your Galaleo myth any longer nor the stem celled myth. This is all you got son and it doesn't add up to an argument that religion hates science. Science was founded within religion by religionists because of religion. That can and has been defended by me and others and even on these pages.

Absolute, unadulterated nonsense. Since you have no shame, no problem being a total liar, then I have no reason to continue this conversation. You obviously won't listen to a logical, reasonable answer to any of your questions, you won't hear a rebuttal without spouting your mythological nonsense, so that's the end of it.

What imagined god, I dont have a god.

peace.

lol, swarm thought he was dealing a blow to the ignorant ID'er but he was actually attempting to ding a fellow atheist who is more honest than he.:shrug:

EmptyForceOfChi
What imagined god, I dont have a god.

Cool. So what's the random chance crack about?

Cool. So what's the random chance crack about?

Im not using the word random without taking into account cause and effect. I mean random chance as in it was left to chance and possibility, rather than being designed with intention it was just mere luck of the coin that life turned out the way it did.


I am not religious, Im an agnostic daoist. I ws raised an Atheist from birth.


peace.

“I've gone to Catholic school, I've read the Bible, and I've done the work. How you could deny these contradictions...I guess it proves what depths you'll sink to in order to bolster your argument. It certainly hurts your credibility to deny them.”
I notice you have not offered a single contradiction. Only one “contradiction” has been offered and I refuted it. If you have a troubling contradiction you wish for me to evaluate send it over. Don’t cut and paste a web page for me to rebut however or I will do the same in return. Catholics do not teach that the bible is reliable, so no wonder you have been confused and misled by your youth.
“First, you did say science was religion. Second, science does not say that the natural world is all that exists. I don't know what backwoods, hillbilly scientists you've been speaking to, but science can only study what it can see, so therefore it can't comment on the supernatural.”
I have never stated science is or was a religion. If you can show me where I have stated this then do so, otherwise ferme la busch. Perhaps your confusion stems from the inability to discern the difference between science and evolutionism. I am happy that you acknowledge that science can only study what it can observe with the 5 senses, perhaps now you understand why evolutionism is not science, but a doctrine of an American Religion, atheistic humanism. You also need to be educated about another thing. Religion does not exclusively mean belief in the supernatural. Many religions are atheistic.
“ Thirdly, they do not deny "science facts" that don't support what they believe. That's how science works; things change, and scientists have their minds changed. That's why theories rise and fall out of favor as the evidence goes. Some stay up because there isn't sufficient evidence to refute them.”
I understand how science is supposed to work. And in some fields it does a pretty good job, in others it does very poorly. The biological sciences are doing rather poorly as it relates to origins issues at least. By your own words, evolution is not a scientific hypothesis because it cannot be observed! Take a moment and let that sink in.

“I'm curious to see which "science facts" mainstream science has denied despite overwhelming evidence. I know I'm probably asking too much, but...care to give an example?”
They have denied the data which proves radiometric dating is unreliable. They have left embryonic recapitulation in the textbooks even though it was debunked. They leave the peppered moth story in the texts even though it is a fraud. They state that mountains and mountains of scientific evidence from all branches of science proves evolution but cannot answer the fact that no observed data exist of any step by step series of information gaining mutations have ever been seen in a science laboratory so we have NO DIRECT EVIDENCE FOR THE THEORY. This means that the claims are fraudulent and what we have here is not science but an attempt to control a favored belief and to squash dissent.
“ All of science is based upon presuppositions which we must take for granted and cannot prove. ”
“El Wrongo.
You are demonstrating your ignorance.”
Am I? Then why did you not refute my contention with anything but ad hominem attacks? I love ad hominem attacks, bring them on? But even I know that they don’t comprise a rebuttal.

‘We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfil many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.’ Richard Lewontin, ‘Billions and billions of demons’, The New York Review, January 9, 1997, p. 31
This refutes your claim that there are no assumptions to science.
“ I don't want evolution banned from schools nor do I know anyone who does. What we would, but do not ever expect, is that there would be an open and honest evaluation of the weaknesses of the hypothesis rather than the current "religious" devotion to a theory so devoid of facts that it is virtually worthless. ”
“Of course, you obviously don't know the first thing about evolution, or you'd know how utterly nonsensical that statement is. I mean, I just don't know how to talk to you after you've proven yourself to be ignorant of the subject...I wish I could help, but since you refuse to study it, then what the hell are we supposed to talk about?”
More attacks, no substance….. chew on this from an evolutionist:
Considering the way the prebiotic soup is referred to in so many discussions of the origin of life as an already established reality, it comes as something of a shock to realize that there is absolutely no positive evidence for its existence.’
– Molecular biologist Dr Michael Denton in Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, Adler & Adler, Publishers, Inc. USA, p. 261, 1985.


“Again, you simply display your complete and total ignorance of the subject. All you know if it (surprise, surprise) is the standard, run of the mill, Creationist talking points. None of which has any basis in reality.”
Son, you are not living in reality so how would you know?

“Absolute, unadulterated nonsense. Since you have no shame, no problem being a total liar, then I have no reason to continue this conversation. You obviously won't listen to a logical, reasonable answer to any of your questions, you won't hear a rebuttal without spouting your mythological nonsense, so that's the end of it.”

For those reading along please note that this poster has not offered anything in terms of positive evidence for the nonexistence of God, the defense of evolution nor the refutation of what he/she considers to be the outrageous statements I have made. I am fully willing and able to defend anything I have stated and go much further, but this person is only interested in ad hominem attacks. He is a fool, like so many others I have encountered here and elsewhere, but I am not dissuaded. I will chase him back into the dirty little hole he crawled out of with no weapon but the truth.

You are an idiot beneath my notice, but I'll touch on this one thing since your brainwashed self can't help but display your total ignorance in this field, and inability to study anything other than Creationist propaganda:

By your own words, evolution is not a scientific hypothesis because it cannot be observed! Take a moment and let that sink in.

Evolution can be observed, and has been observed. Even speciation.

Take a moment and let that sink in.

For those reading along, please note that this poster has not offered anything in terms of positive evidence for the nonexistence of evolution (impossible since we've seen it happen, and have fossil records that indicate it has happened to higher orders still), and is asking me (or you) to provide evidence that disproves God. Anyone with half a brain will tell you that there is no way to disprove God. Not because God exists, but it is the same as asking me to disprove the tooth fairy; Impossible.

Understand that Dan, and people like him, believe that evolution is a crock, but say so despite having literally zero education in the field, and believe it or not, even less understanding of it. All they know of evolution comes from Creationist websites, videos, and texts, which as we all know have about as much scientific merit as my third foot.

And consider what alternative people like Dan propose: God. God did it, is his slogan. They bash evolution on unfounded claims, yet their solution is admittedly less scientific than what they perceive evolution to be!

"That's hack science, man! Evolution is BS!"

"Then what really happened?"

"Huh? Oh, a supernatural creature named God did it."

"..."

God and evolution can work together, I don't see the contradicting terms between the 2 ideas.


peace.

God and evolution can work together, I don't see the contradicting terms between the 2 ideas.


peace.

There really isn't, but Creationists (who are almost all of the extremist Christian cults) refuse to let it be. They've been on the attack since Darwin wrote his book.

God and evolution can work together, I don't see the contradicting terms between the 2 ideas.


peace.

I think with the recognition of evolution, it leaves God with nothing to do.

I think with the recognition of evolution, it leaves God with nothing to do.

Oh, I don't know about that, Spider, we still don't know where it all began. Life couldn't just start out from the vaccum of space, could it?

God probably sat around drinking a lot of mint juleps trying to figure that one out! But perhaps he worked it out, huh?

Baron Max

We have a pretty good idea down to several nanoseconds after the big bang.

what would cause the bang.


peace.

Chi,

God and evolution can both exist but only one has been proven to exist and that is evolution. There may be a God that started the process which is something that nobody ever can claim to know. There is no way to prove it either way.

However, if you want to believe that a God started the process then I would further question whether you believe God started the universe as a whole and we evolved here on Earth or do you believe the creationist version of the Earth being the center ?

Also, if God created all who created God and on and on.

JDawg, the problem here is that NP Dan believes things that require belief and belief only. He has already demonstrated a willingness to put up walls to avoid going beyond the belief although has at least faced the contradictions. He in my opinion is only mistaking the past errors in science and how people affect the resolve of those errors and sometimes try to stall or deny those changes and religious belief where everything is already answered for them.

The major difference between science and religion is that science is about questions and religion is about answers.

The mistake from creationists is to deny all that science has offered. We are living longer, we have evolved. Would you rather have seen a dentist 50 years ago or today. Why ? Would you rather live in the world 500bc or today ? Why ? Of course science has added tremendous value to our lives and yes it has been material. Science isn't here to make people feel better about themselves or to look deep into ones sole. That is not it's role and has never been, who has ever suggested it is ?

JA

what wou