Answers In Genesis -- Anti-science Or The Truth?

[Lightbearer]

Yeah the kids book with Adam and Eve on dinosaurs was pretty funny. I stopped taking them seriously when they showed that little cartoon on the big screen. That's what made me think of "Raptor Jesus and the Church of Latter Day Dinosaurs" because they are equally ridiculous.

 

I was thinking about debating with Ken Ham... but I didn't have all the proper info and wondered if a debate is even possible with such an irrational person -- talented, smart, and funny... but irrational.

[Ouroboros]

Talking about Creation and Science, read my topic about Universe 2.0. The scientists actually are talking about creating a new universe... It would pretty much disappear when it expands, because it would have its own time and space. Somehow folding inside itself... not sure, bit confused how it works. But they're serious about it. So why couldn't we be the result of another species in a different universe discover the same and done the same? Possible, but not necessarily important, because if it was so, then they wouldn't be able to communicate with us anyway (I think).

[Antlerman]

don't get me wrong, i trust in modern day science, just not for my origins here on earth. My reasoning is based soley on my Faith, and i understand that it may differ from the next person.

Then are you admitting to doing what I see as the number one problem of the literalist's approach to faith? Rather than fully accepting the validity of the science and finding a way to feel comfortable with both faith and science as valid paths to different types of truths, you deny (or ignore) science's teachings when it runs into your ideas of "how" your God did things as understood coming through the eyes of faith in the teachings of certain preachers who read the Bible a certain way?

 

This is why I cannot be a fundamentalist, or a literalist. I could not, and cannot deny or ignore sound evidence in order to continue to believe preconceived ideas that were handed down to us through preachers who read myth as history. Head-in-the-sand faith is a denial of 1/2 of what makes us human and is death to our spiritual potentials. Why can't God simply be outside nature altogether? The 10,000 plus ministers who signed that statement don't say evolution is right up until point X, but wrong when it runs into faith. They have no problem accepting all of it, and maintaining all of their faith.

 

You say accepting ToE in its entirety would not affect your faith, but comment like the above make me a little skeptical that your saying that is entirely true. What motivates you to "Dismantle Evolution" then? Why not go after Quantum Physics, String Theory, or Black Holes then? Why go after Evolution? I'm not convinced you are being honest about how the idea doesn't threaten you somehow.

[Vigile]

Rather than fully accepting the validity of the science and finding a way to feel comfortable with both faith and science as valid paths to different types of truths,

 

*here's an innocent question Antlerman*

 

If out of necessity a literal approach to the bible is thrown out, why try and hang on to Christianity in the wake? From my own years of experience with that religion I can't find a valid "spiritual" or emotional reason why I would want to continue to believe and worship. The overbearing factor that kept me in the fold was fear. Take out the fear, where is the motivation and the benefit to the believer? I used to get a few buzzes going when listening to Sandy Patty, et al, but as I grew older even as a believer I became numbified due to repetitive exposure. I get that some people need some sort of spirituality, but why Christianity? It seems to me one of the worst examples from many posibilities.

[Ouroboros]

I just listened to a podcast with an interview with a scientist, and he admits there are many holes in the theory of gravity, still many unanswered or unexplained questions.

 

So here's my idea:

We should do a test. We push a Christian of a cliff and see if he floats or if he falls. If he floats, we know the theory of gravity is controlled by God and not by physical laws.

 

I know that no Christian would like to do that, but they probably would answer like Jesus in the Gospel, "don't test God". Which is the exact nature of the problem with religious "science" or creationism, it can't be tested, it is even stated that no one is allowed to test God. So creationism fails already in the simples part of the foundation of science, testability and repeatability. What good is a hypothesis unless you can demonstrate it to be true?

[Antlerman]

Rather than fully accepting the validity of the science and finding a way to feel comfortable with both faith and science as valid paths to different types of truths,

 

*here's an innocent question Antlerman*

 

If out of necessity a literal approach to the bible is thrown out, why try and hang on to Christianity in the wake? From my own years of experience with that religion I can't find a valid "spiritual" or emotional reason why I would want to continue to believe and worship. The overbearing factor that kept me in the fold was fear. Take out the fear, where is the motivation and the benefit to the believer? I used to get a few buzzes going when listening to Sandy Patty, et al, but as I grew older even as a believer I became numbified due to repetitive exposure. I get that some people need some sort of spirituality, but why Christianity? It seems to me one of the worst examples from many posibilities.

It's interesting you ask that question, and I'm sure not unexpected considering the way I talk about it. I often wonder if I sound uncertain of my own views. I'm pretty centered in how I approach life, but I'm always pushing the boundaries to uncovering a larger understanding of these things, which adds dimension to life for me.

 

To answer as best I can (briefly as possible ): I see that science is both a tool for knowledge, and is also a language to describe the world. But I am also recognizing after having rejected the dogmatism of religion, that there is a legitimate place for the language of the human spirit - that of the wings of imagination. That language is the language of art, music, poetry, and mythology. In fact, poetry itself seems born out of mythology. It has an important effect and impact on the human experience of itself in its existence. Having science and rational thought alone in interacting with life, is as limited as someone who denies rationality and is purely religious. Both are out of touch with the other half of themselves.

 

For most people they can use myths without them supplanting rationality in their lives. But because someone like you or I were taught that these myths were "The Truth", and any other "truth" was a deception, it ruined it as a language of the sprit. I listen to music, but to someone who was tortured by music, that could not be a language of the spirit for them. How Christianity can work as a valid language for some is because they in fact do not take it literally. It is providing for them a way to perceive the world that adds a dimension of the spirit for them. No mythology is "true" in a scientific way, but if it works for the spirit, then it is a truth that works for them. IMO, if the mythology sets itself up against the rational mind, then it is a bad mythology and not a "truth".

 

Mythology is a language of non-rational thought. Non-rational is not "irrationality" Non-rationality is emotional "thought", or "spiritual thought". Irrationality is denying what we clearly know through rational processes, i.e., "the earth is 6000 years old". The trick is finding harmony between the rational and non-rational parts of us. Fundamentalism has made that difficult for me.

 

Most people see no conflict between mythology and science. My understanding this and learning to appreciate and respect this, is part of my growing beyond raw cynicism and anger and resentment within myself towards religion which ultimately hinders my own spirit. This is why I am focused against literalism in people, not religious thought, even though I may not embrace religious myths for myself. I see healthy benefits for people to acknowledge and nurture their spirit, either through art, music, poety, or mythology, and fundamentalism is in fact the closet thing in this world to being legitamately called "Satan", being an evil which hinders and kills the human spirit. No one can be at peace with themselves denying their own mind. On the opposite side of the scale, a rationalist fundamentalist is also denying something in themselves, IMO.

 

Does that help? (I just can't be brief, can I? )

 

P.S. I kind of missed touching on the question "Why Christianity?" I think OM best described it by saying it is the language she was most familiar with. It's a language system of our cultural mythologies. You don't have to take it literally. For myself, I cannot use that language because it has bad history with me, but I can see how it can work for others. If it wasn't a good language in some fashion, it would be around today. People keep it alive.

[mwc]

Talking about Creation and Science, read my topic about Universe 2.0. The scientists actually are talking about creating a new universe... It would pretty much disappear when it expands, because it would have its own time and space. Somehow folding inside itself... not sure, bit confused how it works. But they're serious about it. So why couldn't we be the result of another species in a different universe discover the same and done the same? Possible, but not necessarily important, because if it was so, then they wouldn't be able to communicate with us anyway (I think).

And the instant that these scientists do create this universe (and they plan to do it quite soon) they literally become deist type gods. Any species that may evolve inside their universe could end up having the same stupid conversations that us humans (and possibly other creatures) are having about god right now. Trying to tie coincidence to real events. The thing is that once made the universe goes off on its own never to be seen again. ID/Deism would be the correct theory, to a point (ID in that the scientist chooses what he could to start the process but nothing beyond that "big bang" moment and he loses control of his creation moments later unlike deism). I have no problem being a type of "proof" in a lab experient...it's better than being a "sim" or in "The Matrix" I think. So if people wish to worship something, how ironic the "god" that they worship could very well be a scientist in another dimension that has never never had contact with us and whose only contribution to us was to "intelligently design" our starting matter and starting point that appears to our scientists as a big bang.

 

mwc

[Vigile]

To answer as best I can (briefly as possible ): I see that science is both a tool for knowledge, and is also a language to describe the world. But I am also recognizing after having rejected the dogmatism of religion, that there is a legitimate place for the language of the human spirit - that of the wings of imagination. That language is the language of art, music, poetry, and mythology. In fact, poetry itself seems born out of mythology. It has an important effect and impact on the human experience of itself in its existence. Having science and rational thought alone in interacting with life, is as limited as someone who denies rationality and is purely religious. Both are out of touch with the other half of themselves.

 

I can certainly agree with you on this. One reason I asked "why Christianity?" though is due to the fact that it has such an unscrupulous history of quashing these things you so elequently described.

 

P.S. I kind of missed touching on the question "Why Christianity?" I think OM best described it by saying it is the language she was most familiar with. It's a language system of our cultural mythologies. You don't have to take it literally. For myself, I cannot use that language because it has bad history with me, but I can see how it can work for others. If it wasn't a good language in some fashion, it would be around today. People keep it alive.

 

Yeah, my own history makes it difficult to be objective in my evaluation of this particular religion as well.

 

I wonder though if most people find in Christianity this same kind of poetry that OM finds. I suspect, and again I'm reading through my own past experiences, that most are just captured by the meme and if the meme could somehow be cleaned like a computer virus, that the need for this particular religion would evaporate with it.

 

I'm not disagreeing with you; more just musing. In any case, we are digressing from the topic so I better drop it.

[Ouroboros]

And the instant that these scientists do create this universe (and they plan to do it quite soon) they literally become deist type gods. Any species that may evolve inside their universe could end up having the same stupid conversations that us humans (and possibly other creatures) are having about god right now. Trying to tie coincidence to real events. The thing is that once made the universe goes off on its own never to be seen again. ID/Deism would be the correct theory, to a point (ID in that the scientist chooses what he could to start the process but nothing beyond that "big bang" moment and he loses control of his creation moments later unlike deism). I have no problem being a type of "proof" in a lab experient...it's better than being a "sim" or in "The Matrix" I think. So if people wish to worship something, how ironic the "god" that they worship could very well be a scientist in another dimension that has never never had contact with us and whose only contribution to us was to "intelligently design" our starting matter and starting point that appears to our scientists as a big bang.

 

mwc

Yup.

 

Did you read this topic: Project Cosmos?

 

What's kind of strange is that they won't be able to communicate with this new universe, so there's no way of creating religions etc in there.

 

If we are the result of the same kind of "outer experiment", than the only gods we should think of are these "outside" scientists that created our universe, and we can be thankful for what they did, but there's no way of sending a message to them to thank them, or even be awed by their brilliance or skills. They're just as "human" or limited as us.

[Vigile]

If we are the result of the same kind of "outer experiment", than the only gods we should think of are these "outside" scientists that created our universe, and we can be thankful for what they did, but there's no way of sending a message to them to thank them, or even be awed by their brilliance or skills. They're just as "human" or limited as us.

 

Wouldn't they be long dead? Probably even their species?

[Antlerman]

Talking about Creation and Science, read my topic about Universe 2.0. The scientists actually are talking about creating a new universe... It would pretty much disappear when it expands, because it would have its own time and space. Somehow folding inside itself... not sure, bit confused how it works. But they're serious about it. So why couldn't we be the result of another species in a different universe discover the same and done the same? Possible, but not necessarily important, because if it was so, then they wouldn't be able to communicate with us anyway (I think).

And the instant that these scientists do create this universe (and they plan to do it quite soon) they literally become deist type gods. Any species that may evolve inside their universe could end up having the same stupid conversations that us humans (and possibly other creatures) are having about god right now. Trying to tie coincidence to real events. The thing is that once made the universe goes off on its own never to be seen again. ID/Deism would be the correct theory, to a point (ID in that the scientist chooses what he could to start the process but nothing beyond that "big bang" moment and he loses control of his creation moments later unlike deism). I have no problem being a type of "proof" in a lab experient...it's better than being a "sim" or in "The Matrix" I think. So if people wish to worship something, how ironic the "god" that they worship could very well be a scientist in another dimension that has never never had contact with us and whose only contribution to us was to "intelligently design" our starting matter and starting point that appears to our scientists as a big bang.

 

mwc

These are much the thoughts I was having when I read that article, that Aristotle was closer to this truth by viewing God as the Prime Mover. This is what these scientists would be for that universe. However... what if the lead scientist of our vacuum bubble universe lets call him Dr. Robert K. Jehovah, had developed a way to be able to communicate and interact intermittently and inconsistently with the universe his team created? Might not the sentient microbes that evolved in Dr. Jehovah's universe take the bits of pieces of transmitted data and play connect-the-dots with it until they came up with the Bible? That might explain all the contradictions, faulty transmissions.

[freeday]

don't get me wrong, i trust in modern day science, just not for my origins here on earth. My reasoning is based soley on my Faith, and i understand that it may differ from the next person.

Then are you admitting to doing what I see as the number one problem of the literalist's approach to faith? Rather than fully accepting the validity of the science and finding a way to feel comfortable with both faith and science as valid paths to different types of truths, you deny (or ignore) science's teachings when it runs into your ideas of "how" your God did things as understood coming through the eyes of faith in the teachings of certain preachers who read the Bible a certain way?

 

This is why I cannot be a fundamentalist, or a literalist. I could not, and cannot deny or ignore sound evidence in order to continue to believe preconceived ideas that were handed down to us through preachers who read myth as history. Head-in-the-sand faith is a denial of 1/2 of what makes us human and is death to our spiritual potentials. Why can't God simply be outside nature altogether? The 10,000 plus ministers who signed that statement don't say evolution is right up until point X, but wrong when it runs into faith. They have no problem accepting all of it, and maintaining all of their faith.

 

You say accepting ToE in its entirety would not affect your faith, but comment like the above make me a little skeptical that your saying that is entirely true. What motivates you to "Dismantle Evolution" then? Why not go after Quantum Physics, String Theory, or Black Holes then? Why go after Evolution? I'm not convinced you are being honest about how the idea doesn't threaten you somehow.

 

i guess i should rephrase myself, ToE doesn't threaten me, because i feel it will never be proved. i don't think that natural selction offers any sound evidence. it is soft inmeasureable evidence at best. you look at me as having faith in something that cannot be proven, i look at you the same way. maybe i am ignorant, maybe i am not.

 

in my reading, natural selection people used to believe that the universe was always here, and would always be. now we have the big bang theory, which evidence strongly supports. this leads us to a major delima of two well endorsed principles of physics.

 

1st law of thermodynamics, matter can niether be created or destroyed

 

the principle of general relativity, the universe had a beginning and is expanding.

 

if the universe had a begining, then there was a point at which no matter existed, but matter can not be created. so what gives. in my reading, i am more convince now than ever that there was a creator and it was created with thought and purpose.

 

i have read every resource website thrown at me, even the enire talk origins one, (well most of it anyway), i and still believe what i believe, maybe you should put your thoughts to the test and pick up the book i read. you have nothing to worry about if there really is sound evidence of ToE.

[Dhampir]

the principle of general relativity, the universe had a beginning and is expanding.

 

if the universe had a begining, then there was a point at which no matter existed, but matter can not be created. so what gives. in my reading, i am more convince now than ever that there was a creator and it was created with thought and purpose.

Actually, all theories regarding the state of the universe that I am aware of, (except the ones that say the universe as it is now is eternal) including BBT, state that space-time as it is currently known had a beginning. Essentially, with BBT for instance, it states that before the Big Bang, the universe existed, as an infinitely small, infinitely dense pocket of matter. To my knowledge, it addresses nothing before that, of course, if Time began with or slightly before the beginning of the universe as it is known, there was no 'Time' to speak of.

 

Essentially, any argument for an uncaused cause begs the question: if there is such a thing, why can't it be the universe?

 

Oh, also, just because all the matter in the universe can't be created, does not mean the universe itself couldn't have sprung from nothing. We have no way of knowing whether or not that is the case. Yet.

[Ouroboros]

Wouldn't they be long dead? Probably even their species?

Don't know. It would be different timelines. Our time is not the same as their time. (Not joking here.)

 

Just like time is relative depending on speed. Our time is completely dependent on our universe. And we couldn't even compare our time with theirs, but they can't compare their time with ours either.

 

The only occasion when their time coalesced with ours was at t0 (time zero). Then we never meet again.

 

1st law of thermodynamics, matter can niether be created or destroyed

Sorry, wrong. Please come again.

 

The 1st Law of Thermodynamics is :"Energy can not me created or destroyed"

 

Also called The law of conservation of energy.

 

We destroy and create particles all the time. Fotons are a kind of particle (in one view), and your monitor, lightbulb etc creates it from energy.

 

The sum of all ingoing energy is equal to the sum of all outgoing energy.

 

You should know about the famous formula E=mc^2. That's an energy transformation formula of mass (matter) into pure energy.

 

the principle of general relativity, the universe had a beginning and is expanding.

 

if the universe had a begining, then there was a point at which no matter existed, but matter can not be created. so what gives. in my reading, i am more convince now than ever that there was a creator and it was created with thought and purpose.

No. Matter was the result of state changes of the quarks and possible the super strings, through expansion of space and then gravity played a role too. All the energy was encapsulated at the point of origin, but no matter.

 

In the particle accelerators they create and destroy matter. No problem. It's done today.

 

But you get alpha radiation, bosons, radio emissions, beta radiation, gamma radiation, and so on...

 

i have read every resource website thrown at me, even the enire talk origins one, (well most of it anyway), i and still believe what i believe, maybe you should put your thoughts to the test and pick up the book i read. you have nothing to worry about if there really is sound evidence of ToE.

I will read that book at a later date when things are calming down a bit. Or maybe I'll talk to some of my more scientific friends to give a critique of it.

 

--edit--

 

The phrase you were looking for was this one:

Energy can be neither created nor destroyed. Mayer [1841]

[RHEMtron]

freeday: is there really a difference between literal and extreme literal? doesnt literal already literally mean word for word? How can you claim to read the bible literally and then disagree with AiG by saying theyre too literal?

[Dhampir]

Okay, I was wrong about that statement earlier. Just replace the word matter with the word energy.

[Ouroboros]

Sorry, did I do an overkill of the issue?

 

Btw, Freeday, you said once somewhere that the scientists are planning on making antimatter and that thought scare you because of the incredible amount of energy you would get from it. Well, it's not that they're planning on doing it, since they have been doing it for quite a while, here's one of the experiments: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/gene...gen_020918.html

 

So you have nothing to fear.

[mwc]

Yup.

 

Did you read this topic: Project Cosmos?

 

What's kind of strange is that they won't be able to communicate with this new universe, so there's no way of creating religions etc in there.

 

If we are the result of the same kind of "outer experiment", than the only gods we should think of are these "outside" scientists that created our universe, and we can be thankful for what they did, but there's no way of sending a message to them to thank them, or even be awed by their brilliance or skills. They're just as "human" or limited as us.

I noticed the other topic after I typed my message (isn't that always how it works?).

 

I really hope these guys succeed since it puts a whole new spin on the concept of god. Of course the "real god" will be the one in the bible and we're in the real universe and all sorts of apologetics will kick into action to explain how the new universe isn't a real universe (it only existed for a moment then "disappeared" so it must be gone...meaning it doesn't exist anymore). So sadly a major scientific victory will be reduced to nothingness by the religious extremists on all sides.

 

mwc

[mwc]

These are much the thoughts I was having when I read that article, that Aristotle was closer to this truth by viewing God as the Prime Mover. This is what these scientists would be for that universe. However... what if the lead scientist of our vacuum bubble universe lets call him Dr. Robert K. Jehovah, had developed a way to be able to communicate and interact intermittently and inconsistently with the universe his team created? Might not the sentient microbes that evolved in Dr. Jehovah's universe take the bits of pieces of transmitted data and play connect-the-dots with it until they came up with the Bible? That might explain all the contradictions, faulty transmissions.

Well, if the good doctor did manage such a feat, even though he's not technically a god he would be a genius. In the case of Dr. Robert K. Jehovah I would say an evil genius.

 

From what I've read about this theory though it is impossible to maintain any ties whatsoever to the child universe. It forms and enters into its own time/space in a fraction of a second.

 

I think the "faulty transmissions" would be a combination of solar radiation, cheap wine, various herbs and miscellaneous affecting the brains of ancient men wandering around the heat of the deserts.

 

mwc

[freeday]

the principle of general relativity, the universe had a beginning and is expanding.

 

 

Oh, also, just because all the matter in the universe can't be created, does not mean the universe itself couldn't have sprung from nothing. We have no way of knowing whether or not that is the case. Yet.

 

that is so very true, we have no way of knowing what occurred prior to the big bang, i was making an assumption that there was nothing, maybe it was all the matter in the universe compressed into a small little ball. watched a special on it on the discovery channell, they showed a lot of the hubble space photos of other galaxies. they said on there that the matter in a black hole was due to a compression of a sun. they said it would be the equivalant of compressing the earths matter into a 1/8th inch ball. now that is incredible. really makes you feel small in the scope of all things.

 

Hans thank you for the correction, i always get that crap confussed with matter. as far as the antimater bomb, they said that if antimater came in contact with matter, it creates a violent explosion. they said the problem they are having is harnessing enough and how to store it.

 

 

 

Sorry, did I do an overkill of the issue?

 

Btw, Freeday, you said once somewhere that the scientists are planning on making antimatter and that thought scare you because of the incredible amount of energy you would get from it. Well, it's not that they're planning on doing it, since they have been doing it for quite a while, here's one of the experiments: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/gene...gen_020918.html

 

So you have nothing to fear.

 

great read, thanks. didn't know this.

 

"Making antiprotons requires 10 billion times more energy than it produces. For example, the antimatter produced each year at CERN could power a 100 watt light bulb for 15 minutes, Hangst said."

[Ouroboros]

they said on there that the matter in a black hole was due to a compression of a sun. they said it would be the equivalant of compressing the earths matter into a 1/8th inch ball. now that is incredible. really makes you feel small in the scope of all things.

So very true. And imagine that the universe is trillions and trillions (not very exact number. ) times larger than our planet. It's quite a huge universe.

 

Hans thank you for the correction, i always get that crap confussed with matter. as far as the antimater bomb, they said that if antimater came in contact with matter, it creates a violent explosion. they said the problem they are having is harnessing enough and how to store it.

I mess up things like that too. It's understandable.

 

Yeah. If we could find antimatter, we would be pretty much set. Most likely not much laying around here though...

 

 

"Making antiprotons requires 10 billion times more energy than it produces. For example, the antimatter produced each year at CERN could power a 100 watt light bulb for 15 minutes, Hangst said."

They're thinking so small.

[mwc]

1st law of thermodynamics, matter can niether be created or destroyed

Okay. Not true. Others have already addressed this though.

 

the principle of general relativity, the universe had a beginning and is expanding.

 

if the universe had a begining, then there was a point at which no matter existed, but matter can not be created. so what gives. in my reading, i am more convince now than ever that there was a creator and it was created with thought and purpose.

Actually, matter is created all the time. The beginning of time would have been that all energy was concentrated into a singularity (well, the beginning of time would have been at the release of that energy...the concentration of the energy in the singularity would precede time).

 

However, what you mention is just one of many theories. You like to imagine god always existed. How about instead of god always existing that energy always existed? How did it come to exist? I don't know? How did god come to exist? You don't know. It's the same exact way. Now imagine that in some other dimension there are two energy fields and they collide. *BAM* At that point of collision, in another dimension (our dimension), out of what appears to be a singularity comes all this energy. A universe is formed. The energy didn't come from nowhere. It came from somewhere. This collision. So it's not something from nothing. It's something from something.

 

That's just one of many theories. Maybe Hawking is right and there technically are no boundries? I can't tell you which one is right. Maybe none of them. Maybe they'll never figure it out?

 

If you think that there's a purpose to our universe I'd like to know what it is. What is the purpose to the most deadly environment to humans? Horrid radiation. Near perfect vacuum. Extreme heat. Near absolute zero. And these are the things we deal with just in our shuttle. To do anything fancy we have truly frightening things to deal with. Space is a very deadly place for us. The only thought and purpose it shows is that it is to keep us trapped on this little tiny planet. It is taking every bit of our intelligence to find a way off of this planet and the distances to other destinations are so immense that the effort is by and large a futile one. So if the purpose of the design is to keep us isolated instead of allowing us to explore first hand the majesty and wonder of the universe that we can see through telescopes then I applaud the designer.

 

mwc

[freeday]

good point there MWC.

 

i knew i wasn't crazy, its the Law of Conservation of Mass that states matter can not be created nor destroyed. this applies to the principle of general relativity in a closed system. its debateable wether our universe is a closed system, but based on the 2nd law of thermodynamics, i am lead to believe that it is a closed system. (ex. stars run out of compressed hydrogen and burn out or colapse.) but there is a monkey wrentch in there, there is the principle of special relativity. which from what i read, matter can be lost. if somebody can read and understand it better. i would love a easy to understand definition. remember, us down here in mississippi are held to a lower standard. down here things are printed on a 6th grade level. hell were is that cartoon book with adam and the dinasours. i could probably understand it better.

[Antlerman]

i guess i should rephrase myself, ToE doesn't threaten me, because i feel it will never be proved.

Well, there we go. Chalk one up for my radar. You betcha’ it threatens you. It stands as a very real threat to you – because you are a literalist! You define God in a box. If you weren’t, if you didn’t, this wouldn’t be a threat to you. You would not be one of those 10,000 ministers. You think science is WRONG when it conflicts with your faith.

 

So off you go, in search of arguments to help you sleep better at night. Like the Bible says, “because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables.”

 

All these arguments you have presented, as I have said before has been sufficiently looked at, considered, discussed, reviewed, and wholly discredited by legitimate science. I have said all this many times, yet it means nothing to you because you have the ear-plugs of denial pushed firmly into your ears of faith.

 

Your faith is on dangerous ground. You have just stated that “it doesn’t threaten me because I feel it will never be proved.” So when it is proved beyond doubt, then what? Your faith will fail? This is what just you said you feel. These ministers accept science and their faith hasn’t. What do they have that you don’t? How do they approach faith that makes that big of a difference for them? My thoughts? They base it on their hearts, and are humble enough to realize they can’t close God in like you are.

 

i don't think that natural selction offers any sound evidence.

Whatever. I really don’t care to respond with anything other than to say this statement is utter nonsense. There’s also no sound evidence that gravity exists.

 

you look at me as having faith in something that cannot be proven, i look at you the same way. maybe i am ignorant, maybe i am not.

You do not comprehend what faith is. Again, Big F little f. Big F = Religious Faith, faith in something that defies natural explanation and lacks any credible evidence – a leap beyond rationality into a non-rationally based Faith; little f = faith, or confidence in the integrity of a system of knowledge (in this case) that has rationality at its core. In science this level of trustworthiness in not misplaced. It is the best system of knowledge the world has.

 

So yes, I have faith that science is not a Faith-Based discipline and is therefore trustworthy, as best as could be hoped for in the world. Accepting the veracity of the vast majority of modern science’s findings is not like having faith that man was made from a handful of dirt and spit from the lips of a god. Sorry. I know that would make you more comfortable to believe it is, but I doubt you can really convince yourself that it’s the same. If you can, than you are intellectually dishonest.

 

in my reading, natural selection people used to believe that the universe was always here, and would always be. now we have the big bang theory, which evidence strongly supports. this leads us to a major delima of two well endorsed principles of physics.

 

1st law of thermodynamics, matter can niether be created or destroyed

 

the principle of general relativity, the universe had a beginning and is expanding.

 

if the universe had a begining, then there was a point at which no matter existed, but matter can not be created. so what gives. in my reading, i am more convince now than ever that there was a creator and it was created with thought and purpose.

This is why you need to throw away these books from apologists pretending to know science. Read Han’s response straightening out these scientific misrepresentations.

 

i have read every resource website thrown at me, even the enire talk origins one, (well most of it anyway), i and still believe what i believe, maybe you should put your thoughts to the test and pick up the book i read. you have nothing to worry about if there really is sound evidence of ToE.

You have read ever resource trying to “Dismantle” it because it makes you too uncomfortable in your faith to consider it as credible knowledge from the scientific community, whom you respect for everything else, except for this ironically. You made up your mind at the outset. You heaped to yourself teachers having itching ears, teacher not qualified in the fields they criticize scientifically. They offer no science that passes the test, yet you accept it because it makes you feel better. That’s sad. I would hope your faith were stronger than that.

 

As far as me picking up those books? Pushing it back at me in defense now? I have read enough of these sorts of criticism to say what I have said repeatedly, that these are apologists, not scientists, and like my signature says, “There is a big difference between good, sound reasons, and reasons that sound good”. These people are masters at manipulating popular opinion to favor their “science”. They could not impress real scientists , so they make all sorts of appeals to people like you, people who are all too willing to want to believe them because their faith needs proof . Your faith needs proof. The ToE threatens your faith for you. Yet it doesn’t for the majority of Christians, ironically.

 

I’ve said pretty much all I going to say on this now that I see that the ToE indeed does threaten your faith, and everything else is a biased motivated attempt to rebut credible knowledge to protect it for yourself. This is not the pursuit of knowledge. This is head-in-the-sand faith, and I find it a detrimental sort of faith. It makes me sad to see people stuck in boxes of their own construction. I hope at some point you will be able to feel safe to step outside that box.

[freeday]

i guess i should rephrase myself, ToE doesn't threaten me, because i feel it will never be proved.

Well, there we go. Chalk one up for my radar. You betcha’ it threatens you. It stands as a very real threat to you – because you are a literalist! You define God in a box. If you weren’t, if you didn’t, this wouldn’t be a threat to you. You would not be one of those 10,000 ministers. You think science is WRONG when it conflicts with your faith.

 

So off you go, in search of arguments to help you sleep better at night. Like the Bible says, “because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables.”

 

All these arguments you have presented, as I have said before has been sufficiently looked at, considered, discussed, reviewed, and wholly discredited by legitimate science. I have said all this many times, yet it means nothing to you because you have the ear-plugs of denial pushed firmly into your ears of faith.

 

Your faith is on dangerous ground. You have just stated that “it doesn’t threaten me because I feel it will never be proved.” So when it is proved beyond doubt, then what? Your faith will fail? This is what just you said you feel. These ministers accept science and their faith hasn’t. What do they have that you don’t? How do they approach faith that makes that big of a difference for them? My thoughts? They base it on their hearts, and are humble enough to realize they can’t close God in like you are.

 

i don't think that natural selction offers any sound evidence.

Whatever. I really don’t care to respond with anything other than to say this statement is utter nonsense. There’s also no sound evidence that gravity exists.

 

you look at me as having faith in something that cannot be proven, i look at you the same way. maybe i am ignorant, maybe i am not.

You do not comprehend what faith is. Again, Big F little f. Big F = Religious Faith, faith in something that defies natural explanation and lacks any credible evidence – a leap beyond rationality into a non-rationally based Faith; little f = faith, or confidence in the integrity of a system of knowledge (in this case) that has rationality at its core. In science this level of trustworthiness in not misplaced. It is the best system of knowledge the world has.

 

So yes, I have faith that science is not a Faith-Based discipline and is therefore trustworthy, as best as could be hoped for in the world. Accepting the veracity of the vast majority of modern science’s findings is not like having faith that man was made from a handful of dirt and spit from the lips of a god. Sorry. I know that would make you more comfortable to believe it is, but I doubt you can really convince yourself that it’s the same. If you can, than you are intellectually dishonest.

 

in my reading, natural selection people used to believe that the universe was always here, and would always be. now we have the big bang theory, which evidence strongly supports. this leads us to a major delima of two well endorsed principles of physics.

 

1st law of thermodynamics, matter can niether be created or destroyed

 

the principle of general relativity, the universe had a beginning and is expanding.

 

if the universe had a begining, then there was a point at which no matter existed, but matter can not be created. so what gives. in my reading, i am more convince now than ever that there was a creator and it was created with thought and purpose.

This is why you need to throw away these books from apologists pretending to know science. Read Han’s response straightening out these scientific misrepresentations.

 

i have read every resource website thrown at me, even the enire talk origins one, (well most of it anyway), i and still believe what i believe, maybe you should put your thoughts to the test and pick up the book i read. you have nothing to worry about if there really is sound evidence of ToE.

You have read ever resource trying to “Dismantle” it because it makes you too uncomfortable in your faith to consider it as credible knowledge from the scientific community, whom you respect for everything else, except for this ironically. You made up your mind at the outset. You heaped to yourself teachers having itching ears, teacher not qualified in the fields they criticize scientifically. They offer no science that passes the test, yet you accept it because it makes you feel better. That’s sad. I would hope your faith were stronger than that.

 

As far as me picking up those books? Pushing it back at me in defense now? I have read enough of these sorts of criticism to say what I have said repeatedly, that these are apologists, not scientists, and like my signature says, “There is a big difference between good, sound reasons, and reasons that sound good”. These people are masters at manipulating popular opinion to favor their “science”. They could not impress real scientists , so they make all sorts of appeals to people like you, people who are all too willing to want to believe them because their faith needs proof . Your faith needs proof. The ToE threatens your faith for you. Yet it doesn’t for the majority of Christians, ironically.

 

I’ve said pretty much all I going to say on this now that I see that the ToE indeed does threaten your faith, and everything else is a biased motivated attempt to rebut credible knowledge to protect it for yourself. This is not the pursuit of knowledge. This is head-in-the-sand faith, and I find it a detrimental sort of faith. It makes me sad to see people stuck in boxes of their own construction. I hope at some point you will be able to feel safe to step outside that box.

 

i think asimov explained it best, evolution in its most basic definition is change. they state there are 5 different modes of speciation. which i agree with. (allopatric, peripatric, parapatric, sympatric, polyploidy).

 

so i accept the core idea of evolution, but yet i am not threatened by it. however you want to interpret it, you can.