Science, religion...thoughts

[Topher]

The following is the random thoughts put in an understandable topic of a 14 year old with a lot of questions and few answers. I’m not going to pretend I’m an expert, but I was thinking about all of this, and felt I HAD to share it. Remember that these are my views and you do not need to share them or even slightly understand them. You could always pm me if you want to….I don’t exactly find anything special about these thoughts, but please do read on!

Think about this: We have no point in the universe, we are just a random amount of matter and cells, and moreover, we are no more than an accident. Then ponder this: There is a higher power out there. He/ She/ They are the reason we are who we are. Both options have logical answers as to why they are likely. There are also more questions, and opponents of each. On one side is science, which gives us answers, but most of the time leaves us more frustrated then before.

For example: We live in a city. Our city is a part of a county (this is in perspective of the US so bear with me). Our county is a part of a State. Our State is a part of a country, which is a part of a continent, which is part of the world. Our world is earth. Our earth is one of (arguably) 8 or 9 planets in our solar system, which orbits our sun. Our solar system is, in turn, a part of the Milky Way Galaxy. There are many, many, MANY galaxies, all of which have random jumbles of cells and substances of which we may have no idea! Our universe, with all those galaxies with things inside that we can hardly dare imagine, could be one, or it could have another mess of universes. Which begs the question; when does it stop? Does it ever stop? What’s outside? Is it just empty white, is it filled with our wildest dreams and deepest desires? That’s the part of science I tend to dislike. I hate that as soon as you think you’ve gotten your answer, another appears! That’s where religion steps in.

Religion is faith, where Science is fact, or theories. Religion is believing, that somewhere out there is a higher power, a deity, a god, a spirit, nothing at all that has some impact on our day to day lives. Religion can fill all of those gaps in science that can be so frustrating at times. With religion, you can say that the entire purpose of living, is to reach the other side. It was a measure of your worth, an entry ticket into eternal bliss or the Hell of the Damned. Some religions believe you can be incarnated, either here, or some completely alternate dimension. That’s always a comforting thought that you won’t cease to exist entirely.

I hope that people can build upon these ideas, and hopefully correct me if I messed up somewhere. So which argument presents the better side? What are your thoughts?

[Xujhan]

Originally Posted by Topher

The following is the random thoughts put in an understandable topic of a 14 year old with a lot of questions and few answers. I’m not going to pretend I’m an expert, but I was thinking about all of this, and felt I HAD to share it. Remember that these are my views and you do not need to share them or even slightly understand them. You could always pm me if you want to….I don’t exactly find anything special about these thoughts, but please do read on!

Think about this: We have no point in the universe, we are just a random amount of matter and cells, and moreover, we are no more than an accident. Then ponder this: There is a higher power out there. He/ She/ They are the reason we are who we are. Both options have logical answers as to why they are likely. There are also more questions, and opponents of each. On one side is science, which gives us answers, but most of the time leaves us more frustrated then before.

For example: We live in a city. Our city is a part of a county (this is in perspective of the US so bear with me). Our county is a part of a State. Our State is a part of a country, which is a part of a continent, which is part of the world. Our world is earth. Our earth is one of (arguably) 8 or 9 planets in our solar system, which orbits our sun. Our solar system is, in turn, a part of the Milky Way Galaxy. There are many, many, MANY galaxies, all of which have random jumbles of cells and substances of which we may have no idea! Our universe, with all those galaxies with things inside that we can hardly dare imagine, could be one, or it could have another mess of universes. Which begs the question; when does it stop? Does it ever stop? What’s outside? Is it just empty white, is it filled with our wildest dreams and deepest desires? That’s the part of science I tend to dislike. I hate that as soon as you think you’ve gotten your answer, another appears! That’s where religion steps in.

Religion is faith, where Science is fact, or theories. Religion is believing, that somewhere out there is a higher power, a deity, a god, a spirit, nothing at all that has some impact on our day to day lives. Religion can fill all of those gaps in science that can be so frustrating at times. With religion, you can say that the entire purpose of living, is to reach the other side. It was a measure of your worth, an entry ticket into eternal bliss or the Hell of the Damned. Some religions believe you can be incarnated, either here, or some completely alternate dimension. That’s always a comforting thought that you won’t cease to exist entirely.

I hope that people can build upon these ideas, and hopefully correct me if I messed up somewhere. So which argument presents the better side? What are your thoughts?

Religion doesn't present any argument; as you yourself say, it only picks up where our knowledge ends and begins making unfounded guesses. You're correct that our scientific knowledge is necessarily limited. We've barely managed to escape the gravity of the rock we live on; whatever is outside the bounds of our universe is a long way off yet. The important thing to understand is that religion doesn't give you any answers; it only stops to seeking those answers. Time and time again in history, science has proved religion wrong. Every time the two clash, science comes out the winner. Our knowledge is limited, but it grows. If you were to flash forward ten years, there would be many measurable ways in which science has improved our understanding of reality. The same is not true of religion.

There is no evidence suggesting that there is any hyperintelligent being obseving or controlling the universe. It is possible, of course, but mere possibility should not be enough to convince you of something. It's possible that if you mail me all your money, I could invest it and earn you millions of dollars, but you'd be a fool to do so. You should always demand evidence of something before you believe it to be true; any less robs you of your freedom and makes you a tool to those who might wish to manipulate you.

The limitations of science shouldn't be an aggravation. Think about how much we already know; enough that ten lifetimes wouldn't be nearly long enough to learn it all. And yet with all this knowledge, it's barely a fraction of all that there is yet to learn. Now think of how much we have achieved with our little sliver of knowledge. Human lifespan has doubled, the internet allows the entire world to communicate instantly, we've visted our moon and sent a probe outside our solar system. All this, from so little. When we've learned ten times more than what we know now, imagine what we will be capable of. Knowledge is what drives our species forward; without it, a human is little more than a rather curious monkey. With it, we already have all this. Science is the vehicle that powers our understanding of reality, and I think that makes it the most incredible thing imaginable.

</soapbox>

[Topher]

Thanks for the views. I agree that religion doesn't answer much, but it gives you hope for those that choose that. I agree that science is where it's at, and i like it because it is us, using the limited resources around us to come up with even more evidence. Although you could argue that we could be spending more attention at getting of this rock. We landed on the moon close to 50 years ago, and we haven't seen much improvement. Well of course there's been improvement, just as a greater picture. What's going to help more, a colony on a planet or the moon, a space station, or knowing what is out there so we can find out more about what is out there, discover more information, and continue using it to our advantage.

If we were to discover another intelligent race, a peaceful one, we could compare and contrast all of our knowledge. If this were to happen, who knows the things we could do?

[Sythan]

While science is great and all, it doesnt face the facts of life, it doesnt help you get through the hardships. It most certainly doesnt answer all questions.

Religion, depending on which one you are in, may or may not give you answers. My religion gave the the answers, plus some.

Im not bashing on science, its great and all, but to say science solves all is just ludacris.

[Xujhan]

Originally Posted by Sythan

While science is great and all, it doesnt face the facts of life, it doesnt help you get through the hardships. It most certainly doesnt answer all questions.

Religion, depending on which one you are in, may or may not give you answers. My religion gave the the answers, plus some.

Im not bashing on science, its great and all, but to say science solves all is just ludacris.

What exactly are you counting as hardships? Hunger, illness, depression, poverty? Science helps us deal with all of those. Science, at its core, is simply the repeated application of critical, skeptical reasoning. That is the important point that makes science what it is. Almost by definition then, an answer that science can't provide is not a good answer. Some of the questions you're thinking of may fall under the label of philosophy, but that too rests on the same foundation of critical thinking. And yes, I do think that critical thinking is the best approach to any problem. It might not solve all of them, but it has a much better chance than any faith.

[Megan1]

If there was a God (I know that there is, I'm just saying "if" so that the athiests/agnostics here will get what I am saying), don't you think that He would be greater than everything- including science? Don't you think that if there was a God, He wouldn't be able to be proven by science because He is so much bigger than it? I mean, there is scientific evidence that Jesus is God, but it's not like.....SO much evidence that it takes away every doubt from people's minds about God. I believe that God is so powerful that He can't be contained/proven by science because He is bigger than it.

So for those of you who don't believe in God because there isn't enough scientific evidence, let me ask you.....if there was a God (again, I am only saying "if" so that the people who don't believe will understand what I'm saying), don't you think that He would be too powerful to be contained by science? And if you agree to that, don't you think that maybe there is a God and you are missing out because you are relying on your own small human brain's understand instead of on all of the wisdom and power in the universe?

[LlamaLlamaDuck]

Originally Posted by Megan1

I mean, there is scientific evidence that Jesus is God, but it's not like.....SO much evidence that it takes away every doubt from people's minds about God.

I understand what you're saying, and it's really interesting to hear it like that. But what scientific evidence is there to say that Jesus is God? As far as I'm aware, there is evidence to suggest that Jesus did exist but is there really any kind of tangible evidence to say he was God?

[forfrosne]

Originally Posted by Megan1

I mean, there is scientific evidence that Jesus is God, but it's not like.....SO much evidence that it takes away every doubt from people's minds about God.

No, there isn't. We know he existed but that's about the extent of it. There's nothing more than that. Plus, if you believe that God is above Science, how can Science prove that Jesus is God?

Originally Posted by Megan1

If there was a God, don't you think that He would be greater than everything- including science? Don't you think that if there was a God, He wouldn't be able to be proven by science because He is so much bigger than it?

I believe that God is so powerful that He can't be contained/proven by science because He is bigger than it.

Not really. It's just incredibly convenient that he could be above science:

Originally Posted by Xujhan

Science, at its core, is simply the repeated application of critical, skeptical reasoning.

I agree with Xujhan. NOTHING is above science, and if it apparently is, I don't know how any reasonable person can believe in it. Facts > Blind Faith.

Originally Posted by Megan1

And if you agree to that, don't you think that maybe there is a God and you are missing out because you are relying on your own small human brain's understand instead of on all of the wisdom and power in the universe?

I don't really agree with that, and I think that if ther is a God that I would be no smarter for it. I mean, let's be honest, God does not teach you how the universe works. He does not grant you wisdom, and he shows no power. Creating the universe doesn't count, because it's debatable if he did. If God needs no beginning or creator, why does the universe? Anyway, have you learned anything about how the universe works since you started believing in him? Nope. Know why? Because religion, especially Christianity, teaches you to be content with not understanding the universe, because once you start to, you start to unravel religion itself.

[Brandon]

I don't even know where to start with this question. It may seem that science is clearly "better," but I truly think that there is no such thing. I believe that both are equally important. For instance, Xujhan mentioned that science allowed us to visit the moon. We spent millions of dollars to visit the moon for what purpose? I assume we visited the moon to satisfy our curiosity, and to prove to be better than someone else. Does the moon actually taste like cheese? Is there some kind of life on the moon? Now what's happening? People are still going to the moon for millions of dollars. For what purpose? Being in a world surrounded by science, we're never content with the way things are. We want the best of the best. We become cocky and what happens? Nature creates a tsunami, an iceberg, and hurricanes to show us that no matter what you THINK you know, it is never enough. Science has damaged nature, and now we're slowly getting to the point where we're trying to fix what we've damaged. We're shooting ourselves in the foot, and will continue to do so. Why? Because of our curiosity. The only reason why we need technology is because we rely on it. Science answers more questions than religion does, but why does that matter to religion? It doesn't matter. We get upset when a religious person believes in something that they don't know exists because it defies our logic. If they believe in God, for instance, do they question how the Earth was created or humans were formed? Not if they're truly religious. Religion answers questions that science can't, even if science says it's wrong. If someone believes the Earth is flat, why does it matter if they're right or not? If they're happy, then that's all that really matters. Both science and religion have pro's and con's, and although science has contributed more to Mankind than religion, that doesn't necessarily make them better. It can actually make them worse.

[dr2005]

Originally Posted by Xujhan

Religion doesn't present any argument; as you yourself say, it only picks up where our knowledge ends and begins making unfounded guesses. You're correct that our scientific knowledge is necessarily limited. We've barely managed to escape the gravity of the rock we live on; whatever is outside the bounds of our universe is a long way off yet. The important thing to understand is that religion doesn't give you any answers; it only stops to seeking those answers. Time and time again in history, science has proved religion wrong. Every time the two clash, science comes out the winner. Our knowledge is limited, but it grows. If you were to flash forward ten years, there would be many measurable ways in which science has improved our understanding of reality. The same is not true of religion.

I count at least four statements in there which are incorrect - that religion doesn't present any argument (see philosophy of religion to illustrate how bogus that is), that religion doesn't provide any answers and inhibits finding answers (see Copernicus, Sir Isaac Newton, Gregor Mendel etc.), that science have proved religion wrong and that science and religion are in a battle where science is always the victor (see the existence of religious scientists). They are no doubt your opinions on the topic, but dressing up your opinions as fact is with respect the same behaviour as some religious believers which you quite rightly debunk. Live by the sword, die by the sword as they say.

Originally Posted by Xujhan

There is no evidence suggesting that there is any hyperintelligent being obseving or controlling the universe. It is possible, of course, but mere possibility should not be enough to convince you of something. It's possible that if you mail me all your money, I could invest it and earn you millions of dollars, but you'd be a fool to do so. You should always demand evidence of something before you believe it to be true; any less robs you of your freedom and makes you a tool to those who might wish to manipulate you.

It's not so much a question of being "convinced" of something so much as being open to the possibility of it - no religion demands total, unquestioning adherence without any deviation whatsoever and even those who are priests etc. will most likely have had crises of faith in their lives. I have met a number of them. Your "demand evidence first" approach also does not seem to fit current scientific practice with regard to the Higgs boson search, as it is the most widely accepted theory despite no actual evidence of its existence and mathematical problems in its construction.

Originally Posted by Xujhan

The limitations of science shouldn't be an aggravation. Think about how much we already know; enough that ten lifetimes wouldn't be nearly long enough to learn it all. And yet with all this knowledge, it's barely a fraction of all that there is yet to learn. Now think of how much we have achieved with our little sliver of knowledge. Human lifespan has doubled, the internet allows the entire world to communicate instantly, we've visted our moon and sent a probe outside our solar system. All this, from so little. When we've learned ten times more than what we know now, imagine what we will be capable of. Knowledge is what drives our species forward; without it, a human is little more than a rather curious monkey. With it, we already have all this. Science is the vehicle that powers our understanding of reality, and I think that makes it the most incredible thing imaginable.

This I actually agree with.

[Topher]

I agree with religion, I am an active member in my church, so I didn't mean to bash one side or the other. If Religion was the solid base, if there was ONE God or higher power, why do we have so many different religions? Are they one in the same? Are we talking about the same being in each, but through the eyes of different people?

[dr2005]

Originally Posted by Topher

I agree with religion, I am an active member in my church, so I didn't mean to bash one side or the other. If Religion was the solid base, if there was ONE God or higher power, why do we have so many different religions? Are they one in the same? Are we talking about the same being in each, but through the eyes of different people?

It's a good question. The analogy I tend to use to answer it is it's like a group of people trying to discover the perfect house - they all have the same basic notion of what a house is and what is required for one, but beyond that they're arguing like mad over the size of the house, the number of doors and windows, what it's made of and the decor. They're all still trying to get to this perfect house but different perspectives mean they don't quite match up. The atheist in the analogy would simply say "There's no such thing as a perfect house".

Hope that makes sense - it's a bad rendition of it but it gets the basic point across.

[OMFG!You'reActuallySmart!]

Originally Posted by Topher

I agree with religion, I am an active member in my church, so I didn't mean to bash one side or the other. If Religion was the solid base, if there was ONE God or higher power, why do we have so many different religions? Are they one in the same? Are we talking about the same being in each, but through the eyes of different people?

Religion and science share 2 commanlities in particular: both are forms of knowledge and both describe how to obtain knowledge. With science it's straight-foward, you need evidence often done by experiments, formulation of theories, etc... . With religion, there is no one universal method, so people create many methods. Likewise, for the knowledge, religion assumes each religion is correct and some say others are wrong.

For example, Bob believes Bobism is correct and he tells Ted that Tedism is incorrect. Ted furthers his knowledge on Tedism and Bobism to tell Bob otherwise. Cindy sees this and wants in on the action so she tells them Tedism and Bobism are wrong, Cindyism is correct. Bob and Ted want to prove her wrong so they study on all three. I hope you can see where it's going, anytime one religion, a method of attaining knowledge and a guide of what knowledge is correct, is made, it's refuted by others. To complicate matters, you then have Sue who says all are incorrect. You then have Sally who says all them are correct. Bob, Ted and Cindy are going to disagree with both Sue and Sally. Alternatively, if Bob and Ted said Cindyism is correct, then you only have 1 religion, everyone agrees but people don't agree. It's like dr2005's example, which now that I read it, sounds a bit clearer than mine.

As for which presents a better argument, religion or science, well it depends on the perspective you take. If you take the perspective of which one can answer everything there is, religion wins. If you take the perspective of which one can answer some things in great quality, science wins. If you take the perspective of which can further human knowledge, science wins. If you take the perspective of which can have an influence of social control, religion wins. So to say which gives the better argument, you need to say in what respect are you asking about.

However, science influences religion in the present day more than religion influences science. By the first, I mean when something is either uncertain or not known, religion fills it in but once it is somewhat known, religion cant quite fill it in as easily. As more scientific advancements occur in that area, religion has a harder time filling it. For example, years ago if you asked someone how does the brain work, you may have gotten a religious answer along the lines of Descartes' mind-body paradox. In modern times, if you ask that you'll get a scientific answer, not just of what area of the brain does what but what is going on inside the brain to have it work. Not all of it is known though.

For the other way around, that did occur, religion did influence science however you're hard-pressed to find current topics of that. The ones I can think of are more controversial ones, such as stem cell research, cloning, influencing genes of the soon-to-be-baby as a "designed baby" and to an extent, understanding of sexual orientations. Some of those areas are controversial for ethical and moral reasons as well though.

Originally Posted by Megan1

And if you agree to that, don't you think that maybe there is a God and you are missing out because you are relying on your own small human brain's understand instead of on all of the wisdom and power in the universe

The same goes the other way as well. What if there is no god, then you've lived your life for something that isn't there as though it was all a big waste of time. Alternatively, maybe there is a god but what if it's not your god? In that case you and I may both be screwed or both benefited or only one benefited.

Originally Posted by Megan1

I mean, there is scientific evidence that Jesus is God

If there is scientific evidence of that, can you present it?

Originally Posted by Megan1

Don't you think that if there was a God, He wouldn't be able to be proven by science because He is so much bigger than it?

You're giving god certain qualities as though all gods may share the same qualities as yours. If you're going to start saying there may be a god, then you don't know what the qualities will necessarily be. You're biased because of your beliefs and you're clearly unable to separate them even when you're being hypothetical.

[Megan1]

Originally Posted by Natsumi

I understand what you're saying, and it's really interesting to hear it like that. But what scientific evidence is there to say that Jesus is God? As far as I'm aware, there is evidence to suggest that Jesus did exist but is there really any kind of tangible evidence to say he was God?

Originally Posted by MonsterCosmonaut

No, there isn't. We know he existed but that's about the extent of it. There's nothing more than that.

Originally Posted by WOW!USaidSomethingSmart!

If there is scientific evidence of that, can you present it?

I didn’t mean 100% evidence that can prove it without any doubt, obviously that doesn’t exist or everyone with a brain would be a Christian. It’s more evidence like…..if He wasn’t God, these things would be the biggest coincidences ever. Things like all of the prophecy that He fulfilled without even trying (like being killed on the cross, betrayed by His own people, pierced with a sword on one side, having people gamble for His clothes, etc). There is definite evidence that it was predicted hundreds of years earlier that the Messiah would have that happen to Him, there is definite evidence that Jesus had that happen to Him, and there is definite evidence that Jesus claimed to be the Messiah. So from there, you have to decide if you believe that He was God or if you believe that it was the biggest coincidence to ever happen. There is SO much more evidence like that (most of which isn’t 100% evidence but still makes it really obvious that He is God), that was just one example. I can’t think of a lot of them off the top of my head, but it’s all in the book The Case for Christ if any of you have any desire to read it….although you probably don’t.

And again, I know for 100% certain in my soul that Jesus is God; I would believe that just the same even if there was absolutely no evidence. I’m just explaining the evidence because you asked. And I'm not going to debate about whether or not Jesus is God, because I know it by faith not by evidence- therefor I have no way to debate.

Originally Posted by MonsterCosmonaut

Plus, if you believe that God is above Science, how can Science prove that Jesus is God?

I actually almost didn't post in this topic because I knew that someone was going to reply saying this. But what I meant is like....nobody can go up into Heaven and find God and scientifically prove Him, so isn't it reasonable to say that if there is a God, people on Earth wouldn't have definite proof of Him? And like I just said above, there is circumstantial evidence of Jesus/God, just not without-a-shadow-of-a-doubt evidence.

Originally Posted by MonsterCosmonaut

Not really. It's just incredibly convenient that he could be above science:

You honestly think that God who is powerful enough to create and do all of the things that He has done wouldn't be powerful enough to go beyond science?

Originally Posted by MonsterCosmonaut

I don't really agree with that, and I think that if ther is a God that I would be no smarter for it. I mean, let's be honest, God does not teach you how the universe works. He does not grant you wisdom, and he shows no power. Creating the universe doesn't count, because it's debatable if he did. If God needs no beginning or creator, why does the universe? Anyway, have you learned anything about how the universe works since you started believing in him? Nope. Know why? Because religion, especially Christianity, teaches you to be content with not understanding the universe, because once you start to, you start to unravel religion itself.

Actually, I have learned a lot about the universe/world since becoming a Christian. God does grant knowledge and understanding; the bible even says so. No I don't know every detail about the universe and how it works, but nobody does reguardless of if you believe in Christianity or scientology or anywhere in between. But I do know just as much about the universe as an average person my age who doesn't believe in God. The bible explains and/or proves pretty much everything. The book The Case for a Creator explains a lot of that too- it is pretty much a book that gives scientific evidence and background to how God created the Earth and such.

And I mean....yes you still have to walk by faith and not by sight, but the bible DOES back up mostly everything on this Earth. It doesn't go at all against it anyways.

And on top of that, in my original post I never even said that God makes us smarter....I simply said that we should trust God instead of trusting our own understanding.

Originally Posted by WOW!USaidSomethingSmart!

The same goes the other way as well. What if there is no god, then you've lived your life for something that isn't there as though it was all a big waste of time. Alternatively, maybe there is a god but what if it's not your god? In that case you and I may both be screwed or both benefited or only one benefited.

I know that Jesus is God, but just for the sake of answering your question I am going to say this......If I was wrong about God, what would I loose? The only things that I would have missed out on are drunkeness, aimless dating, sex before marriage, getting to be mean to people when I want to, supporting gay marriage......um.........even if there wasn't a God, I'd trade all of that just for the church activities that I've gotten to participate in and the friends that I've made through church! So even if I was wrong (though I'm not), it would have been worth it.

But if everyone else is wrong and I'm right, what do they loose? After their life on Earth is over, they loose everything.

I'm not a Christian for what I can get out of it though, I simply said all of this to answer your question.

Originally Posted by WOW!USaidSomethingSmart!

You're giving god certain qualities as though all gods may share the same qualities as yours. If you're going to start saying there may be a god, then you don't know what the qualities will necessarily be. You're biased because of your beliefs and you're clearly unable to separate them even when you're being hypothetical.

Well yes I was referring to the living God (Father/Son/Holy Spirit), and if it makes me biased to be close minded to anything but the truth, then fine I'm biased.

But either way, don't you think that if any god existed, whether it be my God or not, that since the god would rule over everything and everyone, they would be poweful enough to go beyond science? That really is a quality for all gods anyways.

[forfrosne]

[font="Tahoma"][size="2"]

Originally Posted by Megan1

Actually, I have learned a lot about the universe/world since becoming a Christian. God does grant knowledge and understanding; the bible even says so. No I don't know every detail about the universe and how it works, but nobody does reguardless of if you believe in Christianity or scientology or anywhere in between. But I do know just as much about the universe as an average person my age who doesn't believe in God. The bible explains and/or proves pretty much everything. The book The Case for a Creator explains a lot of that too- it is pretty much a book that gives scientific evidence and background to how God created the Earth and such.

The Bible does not tell you how the universe works through science, and provides no actual evidence that what it says is true, so in all honesty, you haven't learned anything about the universe. It doesn't prove or explain anything really, it just says that God did all of it therefore stop searching for answers.

[Megan1]

Nowhere in the bible does it say to stop searching for answers. It says to search for answers, and it says to trust in God and He will give you answers to the things that you need to know. Nothing in the bible goes against science/the universe/how our Earth is at all. Everything in the bible is proven that it can be true. So since I became a Christian and started reading the bible (about a year ago), I have learned how the bible says everything works.....and then looked to see if it could all be true based on what we know for 100% sure about our Earth.....and none of it could be disproven. So, I learned that, and believe in the whole bible as fact. That's what I meant. I know that not all of the bible can't be proven as fact, but I also know that none of it can be disproven.

[forfrosne]

Originally Posted by Megan1

Nowhere in the bible does it say to stop searching for answers. It says to search for answers, and it says to trust in God and He will give you answers to the things that you need to know. Nothing in the bible goes against science/the universe/how our Earth is at all. Everything in the bible is proven that it can be true. So since I became a Christian and started reading the bible (about a year ago), I have learned how the bible says everything works.....and then looked to see if it could all be true based on what we know for 100% sure about our Earth.....and none of it could be disproven. So, I learned that, and believe in the whole bible as fact. That's what I meant. I know that not all of the bible can't be proven as fact, but I also know that none of it can be disproven.

I'll forgive the gross blanket statement at the end.. Adam and Eve CAN be disproven, therefore it's wrong, but anyway..
It does say to stop looking for answers. It says, "Here's the answer to anything you don't understand: God." and that's all there is to it. Trusting in God doesn't somehow magically transfer information to your brain, it just means that you are prepared to stop searching for the truth and are happy to accept the untruth.

[Megan1]

I know I'm getting off topic here, but I'm curious, how do you think Adam and Eve can be disproven?

And where exactly does the bible say that? The bible says to search for answers to your questions as you would search for treasure. And yes there are some things that we still don't know, because no human is all-knowing, but nowhere in the bible does it say to not search for answers.

[Topher]

Originally Posted by Megan1

Don't you think that if there was a God, He wouldn't be able to be proven by science because He is so much bigger than it?

But if there was/ is only ONE God, wouldn't he bestow into our brains what he wants us to know, who he wants us to be, without having us do it the long way? But i understand what you mean as well.

[John 6:29]

Evidence can never prove anything to anyone. Someone can present a case, but evidence is never 100% infallible, nor 100% guaranteed to prove anything. I believe one day I will die. But this is not a guarantee. That is, the people I've observed, the people I have witnessed, are all mortals, I believe I am a mortal, and I believe all mortals die because this is what I've witnessed. However, until that day comes, there is a chance, if even .0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00001% chance, that I will not die. Science itself cannot PROVE anything to anyone, nor can anything be true or not true, just supportable.

There is evidence that Christ existed, and there is evidence of the things He has done, and many of them are supernatural. Some believe this evidence is enough to believe He was/is God, others believe that it was just magic, others believe He was just another religious figure, despite the evidence of what He has done.

I disagree with the notion that there is no support for Christ at least being able to do supernatural things, even if you don't believe He is God. The difference is, many people will not accept the evidence as provable to them that He is God, or they deny the evidence of it all together. The reality is that we have many historical documents (needless to present here as there are countless books written on the subject) which prove Christ was either A) A Magician B) Supernatural D) God. There's no denying this. I mean, really, I'm fairly certain every person here believes one of those 3 options, or they simply deny the evidence and recordings of what Christ has done, and dismiss them as rubish, concluding that Jesus was only a man with nothing special. Yet even Christ's genealogy is somewhat of a mystery -- that is -- it would be nearly impossible to fake Christ's birth, of which was prophesied exactly as it happened 3,000 years before He was even birthed.

If we had a YouTube recording of Christ performing His miracles, people would go out of their way to discredit the videos. They'd claim it was Hollywood, a hoax, a performance, that He was just a great magician. Why? The same reason the Jews and others refused to believe that Christ was God back then. 1) Because they inclined to obey Him if He is God. And people want to live their life the way they want to. 2) Because His testimony of man was that they are evil, and only continually so -- who wants to believe that? and 3) Because His teachings were difficult. Not difficult to understand, but difficult to accept. It's not every day you hear someone telling others that if you wish to enter the kingdom of God that you must cut off your hand if it causes you to sin. I mean, let's face it. People wanted to crucify Christ because of how harsh His teachings were. I don't doubt we'd want something similar to day, if He were here. Even in the Christian church. I'm sure the self-righteous in our churches would still want Him re-crucified, even after professing the name of Christ.

I mean really, I don't understand what "evidence" people want. Christ was performing many miracles in front of people while He was here, and people didn't believe Him then. And I don't expect people to believe Him now, without even witnessing His miracles. The reality is, as I said, even if we could watch Him do the things He did, we still wouldn't believe it, and we still wouldn't think He was God. In regards to the "evidence" of who Christ is, really, instead of debating it back and forth, and quoting source after source, if you REALLY want to know, it doesn't take much to google. I can literally think of 7 books on the top of my head. Not philosophical books, simply books providing evidence of Christs being God. But again, it cannot ever be 100% provable to anyone. Everyone must decide what is sufficient. And I'm certain that there is nothing sufficient for any of us because none of us want to believe He is God. Not that there isn't enough, simply that we will continually refuse it.

[OMFG!You'reActuallySmart!]

Originally Posted by Megan1

I didn’t mean 100% evidence that can prove it without any doubt, obviously that doesn’t exist or everyone with a brain would be a Christian. It’s more evidence like…..if He wasn’t God, these things would be the biggest coincidences ever. Things like all of the prophecy that He fulfilled without even trying (like being killed on the cross, betrayed by His own people, pierced with a sword on one side, having people gamble for His clothes, etc). There is definite evidence that it was predicted hundreds of years earlier that the Messiah would have that happen to Him, there is definite evidence that Jesus had that happen to Him, and there is definite evidence that Jesus claimed to be the Messiah. So from there, you have to decide if you believe that He was God or if you believe that it was the biggest coincidence to ever happen. There is SO much more evidence like that (most of which isn’t 100% evidence but still makes it really obvious that He is God), that was just one example. I can’t think of a lot of them off the top of my head, but it’s all in the book The Case for Christ if any of you have any desire to read it….although you probably don’t.

Then it seems you are using words you don't understand. Science does not prove anything 100% because part of its premise is falsifiability. The fact you're saying you cant show it is 100% when asked to give the scientific evidence you mentioned, means there never was any scientific evidence in the first place.

Your argument that if god didn't do it, then everything would be such a coincidence is a pathetically poor argument, with no evidence at all, it's purely a hypothetical philosophical idea without evidence. Could it be a coincidence? Sure it could. The simplest example is pharmacology. Many medications either were being designed for something else yet found to be poor for that but great for another unforeseen purpose. For example, some of the initial anti-psychotic medications weren't made to be anti-psychotics. They were meant as anasthetic medications because back then, many patients undergoing surgeries had a high chance of dying just from that. As part of testing the medications, they gave it (like many medications at that time) to patients in the psychiatric ward. Some of these were found to be not great anaesthetics but amazing anti-psychotics. Purely a coincidence, completely accidental and unforseen.

Point is, although there can be coincidence and odds not in one's favour, they don't mean something cannot occur. Saying that something exists because it's unlikely the product would be there without it although there are other methods but less likely, does not exclude the fact those other less likely things could occur and be responsible.

Instead of suggesting I read a book, could you give some arguments from that book seeing as how you know the book better than I do.

Originally Posted by Megan1

And again, I know for 100% certain in my soul that Jesus is God; I would believe that just the same even if there was absolutely no evidence. I’m just explaining the evidence because you asked. And I'm not going to debate about whether or not Jesus is God, because I know it by faith not by evidence- therefor I have no way to debate.

As mentioned above, I asked for the scientific evidence you claimed. So far I've yet to see you say anything remotely resembling scientific evidence. Believing in something on blind faith is not scientific either.

Originally Posted by Megan1

Actually, I have learned a lot about the universe/world since becoming a Christian. God does grant knowledge and understanding; the bible even says so. No I don't know every detail about the universe and how it works, but nobody does reguardless of if you believe in Christianity or scientology or anywhere in between. But I do know just as much about the universe as an average person my age who doesn't believe in God. The bible explains and/or proves pretty much everything. The book The Case for a Creator explains a lot of that too- it is pretty much a book that gives scientific evidence and background to how God created the Earth and such.

Given your previous inability to say something scientific despite claiming it was scientific, I'm skeptical if that book has anything scientific in it. I don't doubt you learned stuff about the universe since being a Christian, however, I do doubt the nature of the information you learned. For example, I doubt you knowing much about biological evolution. Perhaps you can define what it is but beyond that I doubt it.

Originally Posted by Megan1

And I mean....yes you still have to walk by faith and not by sight, but the bible DOES back up mostly everything on this Earth. It doesn't go at all against it anyways.

There is no doubt the bible attempts to back up what it says, however, much of what is on Earth, the bible never even mentions. The way it backs anything up, other than perhaps giving a verse, is saying "god did done it" to whatever the item is. For example, does the bible mention human-invented, pharmacological medications for many illnesses? Not really, doesn't mention anything specific. But, the bible can of course say "god did done make pharmacological medications" by re-iterating the same umbrella statement to everything. So much of what it can back up, it cannot describe in more detail.

Originally Posted by Megan1

I know that Jesus is God, but just for the sake of answering your question I am going to say this......If I was wrong about God, what would I loose? The only things that I would have missed out on are drunkeness, aimless dating, sex before marriage, getting to be mean to people when I want to, supporting gay marriage......um.........even if there wasn't a God, I'd trade all of that just for the church activities that I've gotten to participate in and the friends that I've made through church! So even if I was wrong (though I'm not), it would have been worth it.

LOL, look, if you're going to attempt to engage in hypothetical discussions, cut this attitude of saying "although I'm actually right". You cant form arguments or discussions on what might result from uncertainty to say in the next sentence, you're absolutely certain and not hypothetical. It seems impossible to have such discussions with you for this reason. I have my view on what I think will happen and I'm sticking with that yet I'm capable of putting that aside to have a hypothetical discussion on possible outcomes. You aren't and this isn't the first time, so for that reason, I'm not bothering to engage in such conversations, it's going to be a waste of my time and mental effort. I'll respond to the rest that isn't hypothetical because you seem moderately capable of that.

Originally Posted by Megan1

But either way, don't you think that if any god existed, whether it be my God or not, that since the god would rule over everything and everyone, they would be poweful enough to go beyond science? That really is a quality for all gods anyways.

Nope, it's not a quality for all gods. In sects of theistic Satanism, science is not viewed as undermining the gods or as gods undermining science.

Originally Posted by Megan1

Nowhere in the bible does it say to stop searching for answers. It says to search for answers, and it says to trust in God and He will give you answers to the things that you need to know.

That seems contradictory to say to search for answers yet a conscious being will tell you the answers of what it thinks you should know. That's more like reading a textbook, you learn of what is in the textbook. The authours know more and could have put more in but chose not to. However, reading a textbook isn't the same as saying to stop searching for answers because the textbook can only answer some questions, it may also generate questions.

Originally Posted by Megan1

I have learned how the bible says everything works.....and then looked to see if it could all be true based on what we know for 100% sure about our Earth.....and none of it could be disproven.

So you investigated the scientific mechanisms of certain things in as much detail as possible to see if it coincides with what the bible says? Come on, that's nonsense. For starters, you've seem to not know what science is. To give an example of what you should know to see if the bible coincides, you should investigate all aspects of biological evolution, both at a molecular genetic, comparative and ecological levels. Are you going to tell me you know everything about that, everything about how organisms originated, how certain features formed from other features, how they were used in the environment and the environmental pressures? Researchers who have PhDs in the field cant all do that. If you truly are that brilliant, then publish in the scientific literature.

Originally Posted by Megan1

I know that not all of the bible can't be proven as fact, but I also know that none of it can be disproven.

This makes no sense. You're saying some can be disproven yet all of it is proven. It's saying "some socks are black but all are white". Cant happen, it all are write (i.e. none disproven), none can be black (i.e. proven).

[Xujhan]

Originally Posted by dr2005

I count at least four statements in there which are incorrect - that religion doesn't present any argument (see philosophy of religion to illustrate how bogus that is), that religion doesn't provide any answers and inhibits finding answers (see Copernicus, Sir Isaac Newton, Gregor Mendel etc.), that science have proved religion wrong and that science and religion are in a battle where science is always the victor (see the existence of religious scientists). They are no doubt your opinions on the topic, but dressing up your opinions as fact is with respect the same behaviour as some religious believers which you quite rightly debunk. Live by the sword, die by the sword as they say.

We've had this argument at least three times now, so I hope you'll forgive me for just laying out the abridged version. Consider my responses stock; god of the gaps (which is what I was specifically responding to), religious scientists are successful because of science not religion, and a huge grab-bag of creation myths. I think Exodus is my favourite no-way-in-hell-did-that-actually-happen religion tale though, at least for now.

And forgive me, but the "that's only your opinion, you can't prove it" is possibly the most infuriatingly obnoxious tactic I know of. Perhaps it's just my personal pet peeve, but the limitations of English mean it's impossible to accurately notate which of the things you are saying are opinions and which you claim as fact without making everything you say messy and unreadable. If you want clarification on what my claims are, ask, dammit. Every time you assume one way or the other, god kills a kitten.

Relatedly, even the things I do claim as fact I don't claim to know with 100% certainty, as should any honest person. I'm pretty damn cetain that science contributes vastly more to the pool of human knowledge than religion does, but if someone were able to show sufficient evidence to the contrary, I'd willingly change my tune. I am, of course, not holding my breath.

Originally Posted by dr2005

It's not so much a question of being "convinced" of something so much as being open to the possibility of it - no religion demands total, unquestioning adherence without any deviation whatsoever and even those who are priests etc. will most likely have had crises of faith in their lives. I have met a number of them. Your "demand evidence first" approach also does not seem to fit current scientific practice with regard to the Higgs boson search, as it is the most widely accepted theory despite no actual evidence of its existence and mathematical problems in its construction.

Without wishing to be rude; if you want to debate the particulars of the Higgs Boson, find a physicist. I don't pretend to be anywhere near informed enough to have a meaningful opinion one way or the other on the subject. As a general response though: science isn't omniscient. Often you need a hypothesis to test for, and sometimes those hypotheses are wrong. Pholgiston comes to mind as an example. This doesn't detract from the value of science, it simply means that sometimes patience is requied to find an explanation that will stand the test of time.

If you call yourself Christian, I think it's fair to say that you're more than just "open to the possibility" of it being correct. Heck, I'm open to that possibility, I just view it as a vanishingly small probability. It occurs to me that for all the time you spend on this forum, I know very few of the particulars of what you actually do believe. I'd be interested to see you lay them out for similar scrutiny sometime.

Originally Posted by Michael

Evidence can never prove anything to anyone. Someone can present a case, but evidence is never 100% infallible, nor 100% guaranteed to prove anything. I believe one day I will die. But this is not a guarantee. That is, the people I've observed, the people I have witnessed, are all mortals, I believe I am a mortal, and I believe all mortals die because this is what I've witnessed. However, until that day comes, there is a chance, if even .0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00001% chance, that I will not die. Science itself cannot PROVE anything to anyone, nor can anything be true or not true, just supportable.

Technically correct, but I'm not sure what your point is. That limitation isn't unique to science; nothing can be above any and all possible doubt. The pertinent point is that while evidence doesn't constitute strict proof, it does constitute the only good reason to accept something as probably true.

Originally Posted by Michael

There is evidence that Christ existed, and there is evidence of the things He has done, and many of them are supernatural. Some believe this evidence is enough to believe He was/is God, others believe that it was just magic, others believe He was just another religious figure, despite the evidence of what He has done.

I disagree with the notion that there is no support for Christ at least being able to do supernatural things, even if you don't believe He is God. The difference is, many people will not accept the evidence as provable to them that He is God, or they deny the evidence of it all together. The reality is that we have many historical documents (needless to present here as there are countless books written on the subject) which prove Christ was either A) A Magician B) Supernatural D) God. There's no denying this. I mean, really, I'm fairly certain every person here believes one of those 3 options, or they simply deny the evidence and recordings of what Christ has done, and dismiss them as rubish, concluding that Jesus was only a man with nothing special. Yet even Christ's genealogy is somewhat of a mystery -- that is -- it would be nearly impossible to fake Christ's birth, of which was prophesied exactly as it happened 3,000 years before He was even birthed.

If we had a YouTube recording of Christ performing His miracles, people would go out of their way to discredit the videos. They'd claim it was Hollywood, a hoax, a performance, that He was just a great magician. Why? The same reason the Jews and others refused to believe that Christ was God back then. 1) Because they inclined to obey Him if He is God. And people want to live their life the way they want to. 2) Because His testimony of man was that they are evil, and only continually so -- who wants to believe that? and 3) Because His teachings were difficult. Not difficult to understand, but difficult to accept. It's not every day you hear someone telling others that if you wish to enter the kingdom of God that you must cut off your hand if it causes you to sin. I mean, let's face it. People wanted to crucify Christ because of how harsh His teachings were. I don't doubt we'd want something similar to day, if He were here. Even in the Christian church. I'm sure the self-righteous in our churches would still want Him re-crucified, even after professing the name of Christ.

I mean really, I don't understand what "evidence" people want. Christ was performing many miracles in front of people while He was here, and people didn't believe Him then. And I don't expect people to believe Him now, without even witnessing His miracles. The reality is, as I said, even if we could watch Him do the things He did, we still wouldn't believe it, and we still wouldn't think He was God. In regards to the "evidence" of who Christ is, really, instead of debating it back and forth, and quoting source after source, if you REALLY want to know, it doesn't take much to google. I can literally think of 7 books on the top of my head. Not philosophical books, simply books providing evidence of Christs being God. But again, it cannot ever be 100% provable to anyone. Everyone must decide what is sufficient. And I'm certain that there is nothing sufficient for any of us because none of us want to believe He is God. Not that there isn't enough, simply that we will continually refuse it.

If a bowl of fruit lands in my lap within the next minute, I will convert to Christianity and never look back.

...

Whoops, look at that. No fruit.

It god really wanted to convince us that he exists, it wouldn't be hard. The evidence you claim is by no means agreed upon; historians don't even universally agree that Jesus existed, let alone anything that comes after that.

Now let me address the meat of your point: you seem to have a love of telling other people what they believe and why, and that's downright insulting. I doubt disbelieve Christianity because I'm afraid or cowardly or vain, no matter how much you might assert that I secretly do. The same is true of every atheist I've ever spoken to on the subject. No, I disbelieve Christianity for the same reason that I disbelieve every other religion; it's an ancient myth that I cannot see to have any grounding in reality. Believe me; if I thought for even a second that the bloodthirsty biblical Yahweh actually exists, I wouldn't be turning a blind eye to it; quite the opposite, I'd be the first to pick up the fight against him.

Originally Posted by Topher

But if there was/ is only ONE God, wouldn't he bestow into our brains what he wants us to know, who he wants us to be, without having us do it the long way? But i understand what you mean as well.

Interstingly, there's quite good evidence that the Abrahamic religions weren't always monotheistic.

Originally Posted by Megan1

I know I'm getting off topic here, but I'm curious, how do you think Adam and Eve can be disproven?

Evolution handily disproves the Genesis myth.

Originally Posted by Megan1

You honestly think that God who is powerful enough to create and do all of the things that He has done wouldn't be powerful enough to go beyond science

If you think this, then you misunderstand what science is. If god did exist and actually was "beyond the reach of science", that would mean that it is impossible for any of us to have any experience or knowledge of him. I'm sure that's not what you're actually claiming.

Originally Posted by Megan1

I know that Jesus is God, but just for the sake of answering your question I am going to say this......If I was wrong about God, what would I loose? The only things that I would have missed out on are drunkeness, aimless dating, sex before marriage, getting to be mean to people when I want to, supporting gay marriage......

You don't support gay marriage!? Gay people just want to love one another, why are you so mean to them?

Originally Posted by Megan1

um.........even if there wasn't a God, I'd trade all of that just for the church activities that I've gotten to participate in and the friends that I've made through church! So even if I was wrong (though I'm not), it would have been worth it.

But if everyone else is wrong and I'm right, what do they loose? After their life on Earth is over, they loose everything.

Ding! Pascal's wager. What would happen to you if after you die, the Muslims were right? Or the Jews? Or the Greeks, the Norse, the Pastfarians, etc etc. Or heck, what if you are right? What if you die and get to heaven and realize you get to spend an eternity with the same being who thought that - for Pharaoh's arrogance - the firstborn child of every family in Egypt should die. Are you willing to take the chance that the bible is right, and that the god you worship caused or called for the deaths of over 2,000,000 people?

--

I think I'm going to go and let my blood pressure settle down. ;>> I hope I haven't too gravely hurt anyone's feelings; I recognize that this was more strongly worded than most of my posts. I tend to get worked up very easily about this topic in particular; see my signature to understand why.

[Sythan]

Alrighty then, to throw in something new:

Science people, explain to me how Jesus performed his miracles.

[OMFG!You'reActuallySmart!]

You're going to have to specify which miracles you're referring to. In the meantime, a humourous possible explanation.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ik0yz5Jo4Os

[Megan1]

Originally Posted by WOW!USaidSomethingSmart!

Then it seems you are using words you don't understand. Science does not prove anything 100% because part of its premise is falsifiability. The fact you're saying you cant show it is 100% when asked to give the scientific evidence you mentioned, means there never was any scientific evidence in the first place.

I never even said “scientific evidence”, I just said “evidence”. I specifically said circumstantial evidence so that people didn’t think I meant scientific evidence. I know there is also some scientific evidence of Jesus being God, but I don't know it well enough to get into that.

Originally Posted by WOW!USaidSomethingSmart!

Your argument that if god didn't do it, then everything would be such a coincidence is a pathetically poor argument, with no evidence at all, it's purely a hypothetical philosophical idea without evidence. Could it be a coincidence? Sure it could.


Point is, although there can be coincidence and odds not in one's favour, they don't mean something cannot occur. Saying that something exists because it's unlikely the product would be there without it although there are other methods but less likely, does not exclude the fact those other less likely things could occur and be responsible.

Actually, that’s called circumstantial evidence. I know that isn’t for sure or even great evidence, but….I never said it was. I don’t really pay a lot of attention to evidence of God to know a lot about it, because I believe by faith rather than by sight.

Originally Posted by WOW!USaidSomethingSmart!

Instead of suggesting I read a book, could you give some arguments from that book seeing as how you know the book better than I do.

I haven’t read the whole book; I’ve just been told parts from it, read a little bit of it, and know that the whole book is about evidence of Jesus being God. I could find specific evidence from the book if you really want me to, but it’s been a while so I’m going to have to do some searching. That’s why I just recommended the book instead of quoting it, but I can find some examples if you want. I’ll have to get back to you in a few days though.

Originally Posted by WOW!USaidSomethingSmart!

As mentioned above, I asked for the scientific evidence you claimed. So far I've yet to see you say anything remotely resembling scientific evidence. Believing in something on blind faith is not scientific either.

There is some scientific evidence that points to God, but I honestly don’t know a lot of it. That’s why I suggested that book, because I know that it is full of it, and I can’t remember the little bit that I read. I guess I will have to read the book (I’ve been wanting to anyways) and get back to you with that. That’s the whole reason why I said I only know circumstantial evidence though.

Originally Posted by WOW!USaidSomethingSmart!

Given your previous inability to say something scientific despite claiming it was scientific, I'm skeptical if that book has anything scientific in it. I don't doubt you learned stuff about the universe since being a Christian, however, I do doubt the nature of the information you learned. For example, I doubt you knowing much about biological evolution. Perhaps you can define what it is but beyond that I doubt it.

I have no way to prove to you otherwise, so I’ll just drop this part.

Originally Posted by WOW!USaidSomethingSmart!

There is no doubt the bible attempts to back up what it says, however, much of what is on Earth, the bible never even mentions. The way it backs anything up, other than perhaps giving a verse, is saying "god did done it" to whatever the item is. For example, does the bible mention human-invented, pharmacological medications for many illnesses? Not really, doesn't mention anything specific. But, the bible can of course say "god did done make pharmacological medications" by re-iterating the same umbrella statement to everything. So much of what it can back up, it cannot describe in more detail.

What I’m trying to say is that there is nothing on Earth that goes against the bible’s teachings; there is nothing in the bible that has been proven wrong. No the bible doesn’t show us how everything was made, but that’s not what I meant. I was just trying to say that there is nothing on Earth that disproves the bible in any way. The bible can’t all be proven by evidence, but it also can’t be disproven.

Originally Posted by WOW!USaidSomethingSmart!

LOL, look, if you're going to attempt to engage in hypothetical discussions, cut this attitude of saying "although I'm actually right". You cant form arguments or discussions on what might result from uncertainty to say in the next sentence, you're absolutely certain and not hypothetical. It seems impossible to have such discussions with you for this reason. I have my view on what I think will happen and I'm sticking with that yet I'm capable of putting that aside to have a hypothetical discussion on possible outcomes. You aren't and this isn't the first time, so for that reason, I'm not bothering to engage in such conversations, it's going to be a waste of my time and mental effort. I'll respond to the rest that isn't hypothetical because you seem moderately capable of that.

I was just making it clear that I wasn’t doubting my faith and was only saying “what if” to answer the question.

Originally Posted by WOW!USaidSomethingSmart!

Nope, it's not a quality for all gods. In sects of theistic Satanism, science is not viewed as undermining the gods or as gods undermining science.

I guess I should have said “most gods” then. Sorry, I know nothing about satanism. But point being, that wasn't referring just to my God.

Originally Posted by WOW!USaidSomethingSmart!

That seems contradictory to say to search for answers yet a conscious being will tell you the answers of what it thinks you should know. That's more like reading a textbook, you learn of what is in the textbook. The authours know more and could have put more in but chose not to. However, reading a textbook isn't the same as saying to stop searching for answers because the textbook can only answer some questions, it may also generate questions.

It’s basically saying “Feel free to search for answers when you need them and God will grant wisdom when you need to know something. But even when you don’t have answers, you need to keep trusting in God by faith.”

Originally Posted by WOW!USaidSomethingSmart!

So you investigated the scientific mechanisms of certain things in as much detail as possible to see if it coincides with what the bible says? Come on, that's nonsense. For starters, you've seem to not know what science is. To give an example of what you should know to see if the bible coincides, you should investigate all aspects of biological evolution, both at a molecular genetic, comparative and ecological levels. Are you going to tell me you know everything about that, everything about how organisms originated, how certain features formed from other features, how they were used in the environment and the environmental pressures? Researchers who have PhDs in the field cant all do that. If you truly are that brilliant, then publish in the scientific literature.

I don’t know EVERYTHING about it, no. But I’ve studied it (evolution, for example) enough to know that there is a possibility that it isn’t real; therefore knowing that the bible could be real. That's what I know by evidence. And from there, knowing there is a possibility that the bible is true, I went by faith from there to believe the bible 100%.

Originally Posted by WOW!USaidSomethingSmart!

This makes no sense. You're saying some can be disproven yet all of it is proven.

That’s actually opposite of what I said. I said some of it can be proven (meaning there is for sure proof of SOME things in the bible, but not all)…...but none if it can be disproven (meaning that while science suggests the chance that the bible isn’t accurate, there is none of the bible that they can disprove for sure).

Originally Posted by Xujhan

Evolution handily disproves the Genesis myth.

Evolution can't be proven though. That's why it's called the theory of evolution.

Originally Posted by Xujhan

If you think this, then you misunderstand what science is. If god did exist and actually was "beyond the reach of science", that would mean that it is impossible for any of us to have any experience or knowledge of him. I'm sure that's not what you're actually claiming.

I'm trying to figure out how to word what I'm trying to say. God is more powerful than anything, including science. He can make Himself known when He wants to and leave some things mystery for us to choose Him by faith if He wants to.

Originally Posted by Xujhan

You don't support gay marriage!? Gay people just want to love one another, why are you so mean to them?

We are getting way off topic here. It's not mean to not support something that someone does. If someone lied to you, you wouldn't support that, right? So is that mean of you to not support that, even if you still love them just the same and don't even say anything to them about it- you just simply don't support what they did? No, it's not mean at all. If I was bullying them, constantly nagging them about their choices, hating them, ignoring them for their choices, etc. -THAT would be mean. It is not mean to just not support what someone does. Oh, and the "gay people just want to love one another" thing....you can love someone without being romantically involved with them. It's not the love that I'm against, it's the romance. There are females who I love, but I am not romantically involved with them or lusting after them.

But anyways, like I said, this is SO off topic. I only brought up gay marriage as an example of something that Christians would have to give up. And it's not going to do us any good to debate about it because niether of us are going to change our opinions. If you have any serious questions for me about my views on marriage, send me a private message. But otherwise, let's just drop it.

Originally Posted by Xujhan

Ding! Pascal's wager. What would happen to you if after you die, the Muslims were right? Or the Jews? Or the Greeks, the Norse, the Pastfarians, etc etc. Or heck, what if you are right? What if you die and get to heaven and realize you get to spend an eternity with the same being who thought that - for Pharaoh's arrogance - the firstborn child of every family in Egypt should die. Are you willing to take the chance that the bible is right, and that the god you worship caused or called for the deaths of over 2,000,000 people?

If the muslims/jews/greeks/etc. were right......that's honestly not something that I think about because I know that they aren't. I know that's no debate, but I really have nothing else to say.

God doesn't do those things any more. He did them in the old testament, but then He sent Jesus to take that punishment for us because He didn't want to punish us like that. So yes, I am willing and joyful to spend the rest of eternity with Him. There is going to be no torture/death/sadness/anything negative in Heaven.

[mIssIng:nO]

Originally Posted by Xujhan

You should always demand evidence of something before you believe it to be true; any less robs you of your freedom and makes you a tool to those who might wish to manipulate you.

The limitations of science shouldn't be an aggravation. Think about how much we already know; enough that ten lifetimes wouldn't be nearly long enough to learn it all. And yet with all this knowledge, it's barely a fraction of all that there is yet to learn. Now think of how much we have achieved with our little sliver of knowledge. Human lifespan has doubled, the internet allows the entire world to communicate instantly, we've visted our moon and sent a probe outside our solar system. All this, from so little. When we've learned ten times more than what we know now, imagine what we will be capable of. Knowledge is what drives our species forward; without it, a human is little more than a rather curious monkey. With it, we already have all this. Science is the vehicle that powers our understanding of reality, and I think that makes it the most incredible thing imaginable.

</soapbox>

1) Why should you always demand evidence to support what you believe
I get what you are saying, but I wanna ask you something. some scientific discoveries happen how? By chance? or by someone having a far fetched ideas that someone may have?
Now, I'm willing to bet that when these idea were put out there to begin, many people deemed it asinine and crazy, until it was proven right. Then what? The people who were right were right, and the people who were wrong were wrong? No, people have different ideas for certain things, and view things differently. Demanding evidence is actually limiting your self, and becoming a tool to who ever wishes to manipulate you. Think about it this way, demanding evidence would be.

- I look into outer space, there is no solid evidence or facts pointing towards life being out there so it 100% means there isn't.
(this is your view point)
- I look into outer space, there is no solid evidence or facts pointing towards life out there, but this old book and many many years of people believing there is means there is 100% (this is most religious view points)

Both are limiting your self and robbing you of your "freedom" as you would say, as both lack free thought.

-I look into outerspace, there is no solid evidence or facts pointing towards life being out there, but as we DO know there is galaxies unexplored out there, and while we do not have the facts and evidence saying there isn't anything out there, there is no possible way of knowing whether life exists outside of what we have the ability to access and in turn study.


This is free thought, what you display is limited thinking, as you only choose to believe what science HAS proven, as you say your self there is plenty of things that science has no idea about.

[OMFG!You'reActuallySmart!]

Originally Posted by Megan1

I never even said “scientific evidence”, I just said “evidence”. I specifically said circumstantial evidence so that people didn’t think I meant scientific evidence. I know there is also some scientific evidence of Jesus being God, but I don't know it well enough to get into that.

I'm afraid you did say scientific evidence: "I mean, there is scientific evidence that Jesus is God.... So for those of you who don't believe in God because there isn't enough scientific evidence,". It's in your first reply to this thread. You never said circumstantial evidence. Read your first post. If you still doubt that, then why did other users quote and comment you on that very same thing? Answer: because you posted it.

Originally Posted by Megan1

Actually, that’s called circumstantial evidence. I know that isn’t for sure or even great evidence, but….I never said it was. I don’t really pay a lot of attention to evidence of God to know a lot about it, because I believe by faith rather than by sight.

You've been saying your "evidence" and arguments are solid throughout this entire thread. Specifically, you said: "if He wasn’t God, these things would be the biggest coincidences ever". That implies the evidence is quite strong and you can read the surrounding text of yours for some context verifying what I said.

But now you're saying your arguments and evidence, at least for this issue, are weak.

Faith is believing in something when there are no strong reasons to support believing in it. I consider you to use more blind faith than anything else because you believe what the bible says, most of it at least, but don't bother to think about it, don't bother to have enough knowledge to back up your beliefs. So far, your only additional knowledge was recommending that I read a book because you don't know enough of the book to give some examples from it.

Further evidence of "blind faith" is your disbelief in evolution. I don't mind if people don't accept it, that's fine but I think it'd be good if people could look into something first before automatically refusing it. I don't know if it was you or another Christian user who said they took science in high-school. If it was you who said it, that's bullshit or you learned nothing because you don't know the basic idea of what science is nor do you seem to know anything about evolution. You're disbelieving it on sight and blind faith.

Originally Posted by Megan1

I haven’t read the whole book; I’ve just been told parts from it, read a little bit of it, and know that the whole book is about evidence of Jesus being God. I could find specific evidence from the book if you really want me to, but it’s been a while so I’m going to have to do some searching. That’s why I just recommended the book instead of quoting it, but I can find some examples if you want. I’ll have to get back to you in a few days though.

If someone told it to you and you've read very little, how do you know the entire book is indeed about evidence of jesus being god. Might I add, you claim both in this very response and in others that the book contains scientific evidence, not circumstantial evidence, not word-of-mouth evidence, not made-up theory evidence but actual scientific evidence.

Originally Posted by Megan1

What I’m trying to say is that there is nothing on Earth that goes against the bible’s teachings; there is nothing in the bible that has been proven wrong. No the bible doesn’t show us how everything was made, but that’s not what I meant. I was just trying to say that there is nothing on Earth that disproves the bible in any way. The bible can’t all be proven by evidence, but it also can’t be disproven.

It can be proven nor disproven, so it has no credibility then and is about topics that cannot be assessed in any way. If you want an example of what does "disprove", is the commonly-referred flood. If such a flood occurred, fossilized creatures and plant-life would be at about the same depths underground. However, they are not and researchers have indicated they are millions of years apart. More evidence would be the fossilized creatures that trace back human development. Biblically that shouldn't exist because god made humans on the spot, there should be no ancestral fossilized humans. Even more evidence, Noah released countless animals onto the Earth and many are still here but there are many others that were not released by him because they are evolutionarily distinct from their ancestors (some of which were released by Noah). Lastly, in Leviticus, it says sprinkling blood of a decapitated dove can be able to cure someone's ailment. There's no reason as to why that would be effective. I doubt it's been scientifically examined because it's so ridiculous, researchers wouldn't get any funding nor approval from ethical boards to carry out such an experiment.

Originally Posted by Megan1

I guess I should have said “most gods” then. Sorry, I know nothing about satanism. But point being, that wasn't referring just to my God.

But you ended up at that conclusion because of the supposed qualities of your god and being unable to previously think other gods would be different.

Originally Posted by Megan1

It’s basically saying “Feel free to search for answers when you need them and God will grant wisdom when you need to know something. But even when you don’t have answers, you need to keep trusting in God by faith.”

God granting you wisdom or knowledge to know something means you're not seeking it out.

Originally Posted by Megan1

I don’t know EVERYTHING about it, no. But I’ve studied it (evolution, for example) enough to know that there is a possibility that it isn’t real; therefore knowing that the bible could be real. That's what I know by evidence. And from there, knowing there is a possibility that the bible is true, I went by faith from there to believe the bible 100%.

I'll take back some of what I said in this post and in other posts in this thread and other threads if you answer this question: what have you learned from studying evolution? I may not change my view, it depends on your answer.

While you're answering it, also say the scientific reasons why bacteria evolving to a harmful substance is not real. If you don't know much about bacteria, pick some animal you know more about but your answer has to have some scientific and biological sense.

Originally Posted by Megan1

That’s actually opposite of what I said. I said some of it can be proven (meaning there is for sure proof of SOME things in the bible, but not all)…...but none if it can be disproven (meaning that while science suggests the chance that the bible isn’t accurate, there is none of the bible that they can disprove for sure).

This is why I doubt you know anything about evolution. One basic premise of science, as said before is falsifiability, hence NOTHING can be proven nor disproven. Using that as an argument shows you really don't know what science is about despite apparently studying it.

Originally Posted by Megan1

Evolution can't be proven though. That's why it's called the theory of evolution.

Again, no knowledge of science. I thought you studied evolution, didn't you know it was part of the scientific field and what science is? At this point I doubt you know a single thing of evolution. You can say otherwise but from this statement alone, I don't think you took a single science course. But go ahead, dazzle me with what you think evolution is. I could say what it is but I've done that for you so many times in the past, and with this result, you ignore it all or none of it enters that tiny brain of yours.

Originally Posted by Megan1

I'm trying to figure out how to word what I'm trying to say. God is more powerful than anything, including science. He can make Himself known when He wants to and leave some things mystery for us to choose Him by faith if He wants to.

I'm not understanding how this particular quote of yours shows god is above science. Essentially, he can give knowledge if he feels like it. Science can lead to knowledge as well but not static, it's dynamic.

[dr2005]

Originally Posted by Xujhan

We've had this argument at least three times now, so I hope you'll forgive me for just laying out the abridged version. Consider my responses stock; god of the gaps (which is what I was specifically responding to), religious scientists are successful because of science not religion, and a huge grab-bag of creation myths. I think Exodus is my favourite no-way-in-hell-did-that-actually-happen religion tale though, at least for now.

If you seek to point out the flaws of "god of the gaps" (which I agree is not a convincing argument), please refer to "god of the gaps" in the first place. I'm a fervent advocate of calling a spade a spade, for want of a less tired analogy, and making sweeping statements such as "religion doesn't present any argument" to make such a point is not only fairly wide of the mark, it just comes across as clumsy. Your religious scientists response meanwhile does nothing to reconcile the inherent contradiction which arises by placing science and religion at constant loggerheads, while flaws in creation myths go no further to disproving religion than flaws in Newtonian mechanics go to disproving mechanical engineering (which still uses Newtonian principles for the majority of its endeavours as neither general nor special relativity have much application).

Originally Posted by Xujhan

And forgive me, but the "that's only your opinion, you can't prove it" is possibly the most infuriatingly obnoxious tactic I know of. Perhaps it's just my personal pet peeve, but the limitations of English mean it's impossible to accurately notate which of the things you are saying are opinions and which you claim as fact without making everything you say messy and unreadable. If you want clarification on what my claims are, ask, dammit. Every time you assume one way or the other, god kills a kitten.

Forgive me in return, but I would request that you actually read what I write instead of inserting words at your own discretion. Never at any stage did I say "that's only your opinion, you can't prove it" - what I actually said (and I will admit to some frustration at having to point this out, as I am of the opinion you are a very intelligent person) is that your opinion and objective fact are not interchangeable. That's it. No "you can't prove it", just what is in bold above. I will admit the error of making inferences regarding your opinion and hold up my hands on that one - I did so merely based on logical extension - but if the impression is given that something is being passed off as objective fact when its status as such is questionable, then I have the right as a respondent to raise that issue. I apologise if it came across as what you state in your post, as that was not and never has been my intention, but in return I would ask that if you seek to criticise me (which by all means you are welcome to) you do so based on what I actually write. Otherwise we may as well be talking about the relative merits of grapefruit in nuclear reactors or something equally absurd and off-topic.

On a slight tangent, the kitten line did make me chuckle.

Originally Posted by Xujhan

Without wishing to be rude; if you want to debate the particulars of the Higgs Boson, find a physicist. I don't pretend to be anywhere near informed enough to have a meaningful opinion one way or the other on the subject. As a general response though: science isn't omniscient. Often you need a hypothesis to test for, and sometimes those hypotheses are wrong. Pholgiston comes to mind as an example. This doesn't detract from the value of science, it simply means that sometimes patience is requied to find an explanation that will stand the test of time.

The Higgs boson reference was more aimed at the "demand evidence first" approach you described as opposed to trying to demonstrate the limitations of science. There are a multitude of theories and a large body of research which inherently relies upon the existence of the Higgs boson (the Large Hadron Collider being a good example), yet as such the evidence for it is scant and there are some unresolved difficulties on the mathematical side. All I was saying is that "demand evidence first", while sounding good and logically consistent, does not always reflect the reality of scientific enquiry.

Originally Posted by Xujhan

If you call yourself Christian, I think it's fair to say that you're more than just "open to the possibility" of it being correct. Heck, I'm open to that possibility, I just view it as a vanishingly small probability. It occurs to me that for all the time you spend on this forum, I know very few of the particulars of what you actually do believe. I'd be interested to see you lay them out for similar scrutiny sometime.

I am more than happy to lay out my beliefs for scrutiny in future, if such scrutiny is desired. I have refrained from doing so up to this point as I was of the opinion it would come across as shameless self-promotion or soapboxing. If it is something which may form the basis of a constructive debate, however, I will happily do so. On the first point, I believe you may be quite surprised by the answer - it is a mistake to assume that Christianity requires anything approaching proof beyond reasonable doubt or even significantly over the balance of probabilities.

Originally Posted by Xujhan

I think I'm going to go and let my blood pressure settle down. ;>> I hope I haven't too gravely hurt anyone's feelings; I recognize that this was more strongly worded than most of my posts. I tend to get worked up very easily about this topic in particular; see my signature to understand why.

No hard feelings and apologies for any part played by myself in pushing up said blood pressure. Hopefully the above hasn't had the same effect!

[Megan1]

Originally Posted by WOW!USaidSomethingSmart!

I'm afraid you did say scientific evidence: "I mean, there is scientific evidence that Jesus is God.... So for those of you who don't believe in God because there isn't enough scientific evidence,". It's in your first reply to this thread. You never said circumstantial evidence. Read your first post. If you still doubt that, then why did other users quote and comment you on that very same thing? Answer: because you posted it.



You've been saying your "evidence" and arguments are solid throughout this entire thread. Specifically, you said: "if He wasn’t God, these things would be the biggest coincidences ever". That implies the evidence is quite strong and you can read the surrounding text of yours for some context verifying what I said.

But now you're saying your arguments and evidence, at least for this issue, are weak.

Faith is believing in something when there are no strong reasons to support believing in it. I consider you to use more blind faith than anything else because you believe what the bible says, most of it at least, but don't bother to think about it, don't bother to have enough knowledge to back up your beliefs. So far, your only additional knowledge was recommending that I read a book because you don't know enough of the book to give some examples from it.

Further evidence of "blind faith" is your disbelief in evolution. I don't mind if people don't accept it, that's fine but I think it'd be good if people could look into something first before automatically refusing it. I don't know if it was you or another Christian user who said they took science in high-school. If it was you who said it, that's bullshit or you learned nothing because you don't know the basic idea of what science is nor do you seem to know anything about evolution. You're disbelieving it on sight and blind faith.



If someone told it to you and you've read very little, how do you know the entire book is indeed about evidence of jesus being god. Might I add, you claim both in this very response and in others that the book contains scientific evidence, not circumstantial evidence, not word-of-mouth evidence, not made-up theory evidence but actual scientific evidence.



It can be proven nor disproven, so it has no credibility then and is about topics that cannot be assessed in any way. If you want an example of what does "disprove", is the commonly-referred flood. If such a flood occurred, fossilized creatures and plant-life would be at about the same depths underground. However, they are not and researchers have indicated they are millions of years apart. More evidence would be the fossilized creatures that trace back human development. Biblically that shouldn't exist because god made humans on the spot, there should be no ancestral fossilized humans. Even more evidence, Noah released countless animals onto the Earth and many are still here but there are many others that were not released by him because they are evolutionarily distinct from their ancestors (some of which were released by Noah). Lastly, in Leviticus, it says sprinkling blood of a decapitated dove can be able to cure someone's ailment. There's no reason as to why that would be effective. I doubt it's been scientifically examined because it's so ridiculous, researchers wouldn't get any funding nor approval from ethical boards to carry out such an experiment.



But you ended up at that conclusion because of the supposed qualities of your god and being unable to previously think other gods would be different.



God granting you wisdom or knowledge to know something means you're not seeking it out.



I'll take back some of what I said in this post and in other posts in this thread and other threads if you answer this question: what have you learned from studying evolution? I may not change my view, it depends on your answer.

While you're answering it, also say the scientific reasons why bacteria evolving to a harmful substance is not real. If you don't know much about bacteria, pick some animal you know more about but your answer has to have some scientific and biological sense.



This is why I doubt you know anything about evolution. One basic premise of science, as said before is falsifiability, hence NOTHING can be proven nor disproven. Using that as an argument shows you really don't know what science is about despite apparently studying it.



Again, no knowledge of science. I thought you studied evolution, didn't you know it was part of the scientific field and what science is? At this point I doubt you know a single thing of evolution. You can say otherwise but from this statement alone, I don't think you took a single science course. But go ahead, dazzle me with what you think evolution is. I could say what it is but I've done that for you so many times in the past, and with this result, you ignore it all or none of it enters that tiny brain of yours.



I'm not understanding how this particular quote of yours shows god is above science. Essentially, he can give knowledge if he feels like it. Science can lead to knowledge as well but not static, it's dynamic.

Sorry, I guess I did say scientific evidence first. I did also say circumstantial evidence though. I was talking about both, separately. When I said “this would have been a huge coincidence if Jesus wasn’t God”, that’s circumstantial evidence. When I said “there is scientific evidence that Jesus is God” and when I talked about that book, that’s when I was referring to scientific evidence. Sorry for the confusion, that was my fault.

It wasn’t me who talked about taking science in high school.

I know that the book is about scientific evidence about Jesus without reading it because that’s the theme of the Case for Christ books. It’s like knowing that Twilight is about vampires without actually reading it. You know the theme of the book without reading all of the details, just from hearing about it. Like I said, I’ll have to get back to you with evidence from the book after reading it. Not that I really care to, because I don’t need evidence to believe.

About the flood……Not all fossils would be the same depth underground because some animals died before the flood and after the flood. All of the animals that died in the flood would be in the same depth, but there were some animals who died long before the flood and some that died long after- so those wouldn’t be in the same place. And the bible specifically says that God put a curse on the Earth, making it age quicker; that explains why the fossils appear to be millions of years old when it reality they are only thousands of years old. And I’m not exactly sure what you mean my “fossilized humans”. About the sprinkling blood thing, I haven’t read the whole way through Leviticus yet to know what context that was in….but off the top of my head I’d say that it may have been a healing ritual of some sort that God took part in that couldn’t be done without Him. Or maybe it COULD still work now and scientists just won’t fund something like that to find out. Um….there are probably even more logical options, but that it off the top of my head. I’ll have to ask someone about that.

You seek and THEN God grants you wisdom. It’s both. Seek and you shall find (I know that verse isn’t exactly about wisdom, but it works for that too).

When I said evolution, I just meant evolution of humans. I don’t know much about evolution of bacteria or anything like that, and I didn’t mean to say that that isn’t true. I just know that evolution (as in humans coming from monkeys) is still considered a theory, there is still missing links that makes the theory incomplete, and that there is a chance that it is false. That’s all that I need to hear to know by knowledge that the bible COULD be true. And from there, I know by faith that the bible IS true.

[OMFG!You'reActuallySmart!]

Originally Posted by Megan1

It wasn’t me who talked about taking science in high school.

Apologies, was someone else then. But if you didn't take science in high-school, how can you know much about science? I find no reason to think you're motivated to do your own studying on your own time on the subject, so where did you gain the knowledge of biological evolution you mentioned?

Originally Posted by Megan1

About the flood……Not all fossils would be the same depth underground because some animals died before the flood and after the flood. All of the animals that died in the flood would be in the same depth, but there were some animals who died long before the flood and some that died long after- so those wouldn’t be in the same place. And the bible specifically says that God put a curse on the Earth, making it age quicker; that explains why the fossils appear to be millions of years old when it reality they are only thousands of years old.

So the dating processes used by scientists are all incorrect?

Originally Posted by Megan1

And I’m not exactly sure what you mean my “fossilized humans”. About the sprinkling blood thing, I haven’t read the whole way through Leviticus yet to know what context that was in….but off the top of my head I’d say that it may have been a healing ritual of some sort that God took part in that couldn’t be done without Him. Or maybe it COULD still work now and scientists just won’t fund something like that to find out. Um….there are probably even more logical options, but that it off the top of my head. I’ll have to ask someone about that.

It is in Leviticus Chapters 13-14. The context is if someone in a village has an ailment, it describes how the citizens should react and what the priest should do. In it, the priest is the one who decapitates 1 living dove and immediately after, sets a second dove free to fly away.

Originally Posted by Megan1

When I said evolution, I just meant evolution of humans. I don’t know much about evolution of bacteria or anything like that, and I didn’t mean to say that that isn’t true. I just know that evolution (as in humans coming from monkeys) is still considered a theory, there is still missing links that makes the theory incomplete, and that there is a chance that it is false.

Fair enough you don't know much on evolution of bacteria. I mentioned it because it's one of the quickest and reliable ways to observe evolution happening in front of you. It can be done with fruit flies and such because their lifespan is brief, whereas for, say, a cow or a monkey, it'd take extremely long.

It is false, the theory does not say humans came from monkeys. That is a misunderstanding echoed from people who do not have a partial grasp on the concept of biological evolution pertaining to humans. Either the source(s) you read are complete bullshit or they're correct but you don't have a partial grasp on it, doesn't matter to me which is the case. Instead, it says humans came from a monkey-looking ancestor but humans and monkeys evolved separately. For example, one proposed taxonomy idea is that Euarchontoglires clade were common ancestors for various animals, ranging from rabbits to rats to humans. As this group evolved, it branched and eventually formed the family Hominidae. From this family, humans evolved parallel to monkeys, that is, they evolved from a common ancestor but not from each other. Later, this led to the genus Homo and you had Homo erectus, Homo neandrethalis and so forth.

It's not a detailed answer but here are 2 diagrams because pictures are worth a thousand words. First is from Wikipedia the second is from Nature (very large, well-respected scientific journal)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi.../Hominidae.PNG
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...28475a_F2.html

If you want to go back further, you'll eventually discuss evolution of fish, reptiles and so forth. I'm not going to explain that because it's far too long and uses far too many terms, I'd be giving half a page of terms before starting any explanation. Evidence from this also involves molecular genetics, some of which I know although it involves discussion of many other animals, although you'd be better off finding someone else to discuss with for that as I only know of some of the molecular processes.

Yes there is a chance it is not correct, it's redundant to keep saying it. No explanations in science will be considered factual. Evolution is sometimes said to be a "fact" for the reason it has not encountered strong scientific opposition and there's more and more evidence being added to the books of evidence that already exists. I were to go to a science conference or guest lecture and say to the person "well that's good and all but ____ theory is just a theory, it's may be wrong", just about everyone in the room would immediately think something along the lines of "who the fuck is this moron?".

[ATP747]

Originally Posted by Megan1

When I said evolution, I just meant evolution of humans. I don’t know much about evolution of bacteria or anything like that, and I didn’t mean to say that that isn’t true. I just know that evolution (as in humans coming from monkeys) is still considered a theory, there is still missing links that makes the theory incomplete, and that there is a chance that it is false. That’s all that I need to hear to know by knowledge that the bible COULD be true. And from there, I know by faith that the bible IS true.

Evolution has never said that humans came from monkeys. We do, however, share a common ancestor. There's a big difference.

You're using the term "theory" in a negative connotation, as if it degrades the validity of evolution. This is taken from a Wikipedia article, and hopefully can shed some light:

The scientific definition of the word "theory" is different from the colloquial sense of the word. Colloquially, "theory" can mean a hypothesis, a conjecture, an opinion, or a speculation that does not have to be based on facts or make testable predictions. However, In science, the meaning of theory is more rigorous. A theory is hypothesis corroborated by observation of facts which makes testable predictions. In science, a current theory is a theory that has no equally acceptable or more acceptable alternative theory.

I'd give you the link, but I can't post links yet.

You're thinking of the term "theory" as it applies to the everyday connotation, something that is simply a speculation. When scientists refer to the "theory" of evolution, they're alluding to something that is well substantiated. You need to discern between the two variations.

[mIssIng:nO]

Originally Posted by Megan1

died long after- so those wouldn’t be in the same place. And the bible specifically says that God put a curse on the Earth, making it age quicker; that explains why the fossils appear to be millions of years old when it reality they are only thousands of years old.[/size][/font]

[

I'm sorry, but you can't actually believe this is a realistic argument?


I'm all for religious texts being looked into as history books, but this is just completely off base. As someone said before, you completely call the dating process incorrect here, and that just simply isn't true.

[Xujhan]

Originally Posted by mIssIng:nO

1) Why should you always demand evidence to support what you believe
I get what you are saying, but I wanna ask you something. some scientific discoveries happen how? By chance? or by someone having a far fetched ideas that someone may have?
Now, I'm willing to bet that when these idea were put out there to begin, many people deemed it asinine and crazy, until it was proven right. Then what? The people who were right were right, and the people who were wrong were wrong? No, people have different ideas for certain things, and view things differently. Demanding evidence is actually limiting your self, and becoming a tool to who ever wishes to manipulate you. Think about it this way, demanding evidence would be.

- I look into outer space, there is no solid evidence or facts pointing towards life being out there so it 100% means there isn't.
(this is your view point)
- I look into outer space, there is no solid evidence or facts pointing towards life out there, but this old book and many many years of people believing there is means there is 100% (this is most religious view points)

Both are limiting your self and robbing you of your "freedom" as you would say, as both lack free thought.

-I look into outerspace, there is no solid evidence or facts pointing towards life being out there, but as we DO know there is galaxies unexplored out there, and while we do not have the facts and evidence saying there isn't anything out there, there is no possible way of knowing whether life exists outside of what we have the ability to access and in turn study.


This is free thought, what you display is limited thinking, as you only choose to believe what science HAS proven, as you say your self there is plenty of things that science has no idea about.

I bolded that part because you just demonstrated that you didn't understand what I wrote. What you said you believe as regards alien life is also what I believe. Perhaps you too should be more careful before presuming to tell other people what they think.

Demanding evidence doesn't mean that you automatically believe something is false until proven true; in fact declaring that something is definitely false also requires evidence. The rational viewpoint concerning things about which we have yet to find evidence is to admit that you don't know. In short: what you've said actually shows that you agree with me. Well done.

Originally Posted by Megan1

Evolution can't be proven though. That's why it's called the theory of evolution.

I almost wrote in my last reply "And please for the love of all that is good don't say "evolution is only a theory". If you didn't know, here are some other theories: theory of gravity, theory of relativity, germ theory of disease, atomic theory. Do you deny any of those? Something in science doesn't get to be called a theory until it has mountains of evidence in its support.

Originally Posted by Megan1

I'm trying to figure out how to word what I'm trying to say. God is more powerful than anything, including science. He can make Himself known when He wants to and leave some things mystery for us to choose Him by faith if He wants to.

Then he is within the realm of science. If he were truly outside the realm of science, then he couldn't make himself known to us even if he wanted to. In short, for something to really be "above science", it would have to be so unlike anything resembling reality as to be useless to discuss because we'd have no idea of what it is we're discussing. That is how absurd it is to call something "above science".

[/quote=Megan1]If the muslims/jews/greeks/etc. were right......that's honestly not something that I think about because I know that they aren't. I know that's no debate, but I really have nothing else to say. [/quote]

No; you believe that you are right. Humility is called a virtue in Christianity, is it not? Humility means accepting that you might be wrong. Saying that you know for a fact that you are right is called arrogance. You are free to believe what you want to believe of course, but be aware that this certainty you have is caused by your refusal to challenge your own beliefs, not be your holding any special knowledge.

[/quote=Megan1]God doesn't do those things any more. He did them in the old testament, but then He sent Jesus to take that punishment for us because He didn't want to punish us like that. So yes, I am willing and joyful to spend the rest of eternity with Him. [/quote]

Then frankly, you terrify me.

[/quote=Megan1]There is going to be no torture/death/sadness/anything negative in Heaven.[/quote]

Is there free will in heaven?

[Megan1]

Sorry to everyone for misusing the word "theory". However, it is still also a theory as in hypothesis since it can't be proven. A lot of things in this world are.

Originally Posted by WOW!USaidSomethingSmart!

Apologies, was someone else then. But if you didn't take science in high-school, how can you know much about science? I find no reason to think you're motivated to do your own studying on your own time on the subject, so where did you gain the knowledge of biological evolution you mentioned?



So the dating processes used by scientists are all incorrect?



It is in Leviticus Chapters 13-14. The context is if someone in a village has an ailment, it describes how the citizens should react and what the priest should do. In it, the priest is the one who decapitates 1 living dove and immediately after, sets a second dove free to fly away.



Fair enough you don't know much on evolution of bacteria. I mentioned it because it's one of the quickest and reliable ways to observe evolution happening in front of you. It can be done with fruit flies and such because their lifespan is brief, whereas for, say, a cow or a monkey, it'd take extremely long.

It is false, the theory does not say humans came from monkeys. That is a misunderstanding echoed from people who do not have a partial grasp on the concept of biological evolution pertaining to humans. Either the source(s) you read are complete bullshit or they're correct but you don't have a partial grasp on it, doesn't matter to me which is the case. Instead, it says humans came from a monkey-looking ancestor but humans and monkeys evolved separately. For example, one proposed taxonomy idea is that Euarchontoglires clade were common ancestors for various animals, ranging from rabbits to rats to humans. As this group evolved, it branched and eventually formed the family Hominidae. From this family, humans evolved parallel to monkeys, that is, they evolved from a common ancestor but not from each other. Later, this led to the genus Homo and you had Homo erectus, Homo neandrethalis and so forth.

It's not a detailed answer but here are 2 diagrams because pictures are worth a thousand words. First is from Wikipedia the second is from Nature (very large, well-respected scientific journal)
[/size][/font]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi.../Hominidae.PNG
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...28475a_F2.html

If you want to go back further, you'll eventually discuss evolution of fish, reptiles and so forth. I'm not going to explain that because it's far too long and uses far too many terms, I'd be giving half a page of terms before starting any explanation. Evidence from this also involves molecular genetics, some of which I know although it involves discussion of many other animals, although you'd be better off finding someone else to discuss with for that as I only know of some of the molecular processes.

Yes there is a chance it is not correct, it's redundant to keep saying it. No explanations in science will be considered factual. Evolution is sometimes said to be a "fact" for the reason it has not encountered strong scientific opposition and there's more and more evidence being added to the books of evidence that already exists. I were to go to a science conference or guest lecture and say to the person "well that's good and all but ____ theory is just a theory, it's may be wrong", just about everyone in the room would immediately think something along the lines of "who the fuck is this moron?".

I did (and still do) take science in high school, I just wasn’t the one who said that.

Yes, a lot of the dating processes used by scientists are wrong.

If it says what the priest should do, it sounds like it was probably a ritual that involved God’s healing as well-not just the blood.

So if evolution isn’t that humans came from monkeys and only that our ancestors looked like monkeys…..how does that disprove Adam and Eve? The bible doesn’t say that humans looked the same then as they do now. Maybe Adam and Eve did look like monkeys. Who cares if humans looked differently back then? They were still humans. I don’t believe that theory in the chart that you posted at all, but I believe it’s possible that humans looked like monkeys before.

Originally Posted by Xujhan

Then he is within the realm of science. If he were truly outside the realm of science, then he couldn't make himself known to us even if he wanted to. In short, for something to really be "above science", it would have to be so unlike anything resembling reality as to be useless to discuss because we'd have no idea of what it is we're discussing. That is how absurd it is to call something "above science".

God can control science, so in that way I guess He isn't out of it. But He is out of it's controls is what I was saying. He can control it, but it can't control Him.

Originally Posted by Xujhan

Is there free will in heaven?

I'm not sure exactly. I mean, I know that nothing bad happens in Heaven......but I don't know if that's because we won't have the power to do anything bad, or because our souls will be so joyful that we can't even imagine wanting to.

[OMFG!You'reActuallySmart!]

Originally Posted by Megan1

Sorry to everyone for misusing the word "theory". However, it is still also a theory as in hypothesis since it can't be proven.

It's redundant for you to keep saying it and only shows you understand less and less about science.

Originally Posted by Megan1

I did (and still do) take science in high school

Then how can you not understand what science is if you're studying it in high-school? I have to wonder, are you passing science because it seems to me you aren't.

Originally Posted by Megan1

Yes, a lot of the dating processes used by scientists are wrong.

Why?

Originally Posted by Megan1

So if evolution isn’t that humans came from monkeys and only that our ancestors looked like monkeys…..how does that disprove Adam and Eve?

I never mentioned Adam and Eve but that aside, the Adam and Eve story implies immense in-breeding, not to mention Eve was made from a bone from Adam. During fetal development, sex determination occurs using hormones to influence the subsequent genital structures. That cannot be done from a mere bone.

Originally Posted by Megan1

The bible doesn’t say that humans looked the same then as they do now. Maybe Adam and Eve did look like monkeys. Who cares if humans looked differently back then? They were still humans.

Is there a point you're getting at? I fail to see one.

Originally Posted by Megan1

I don’t believe that theory in the chart that you posted at all, but I believe it’s possible that humans looked like monkeys before.

It's fine you don't believe evolution, however, do learn what it is before you begin saying you don't believe in it. You haven't the foggest idea what it is, at least when applied to humans as shown by your previous post. I asked you to explain what you've learned of evolution for humans and spewed out incorrect, unsupported gibberish. Quit saying you know what it is because you don't. I don't mind if you don't believe evolution but I do think you should learn what it is, not to convince you of evolution, but how can you be so openly against something when you don't know what that something is? It's like if I were to say "Christianity is wrong and full of bullshit" yet never opened the bible, talked to Christians or knew much about it. I'd be a complete asshole to do that and incredibly ignorant, both of which you are displaying. I'm still confused how you can be in a high-school science class and be this uneducated about science, unless you're failing miserably, not attending class or ignore what you're taught.

If you're going to discuss and debate evolution, know what it is, hardly a difficult request on my part. Quit being so ignorant, pull your nose out of your bible and learn of evolution, even the most basic aspects of it. That's hard for you but I'm going to challenge you and make it very difficult by saying once you've learned basic aspects of evolution, don't fuck it all up by throwing your bible at it. After all, that is what you're doing, fucking it all up, fucking science all up by ignorance and keeping your nose in the air stomping on science while chanting from your bible.

I really think there should be a section of the forum for science only or at least threads for only people engaged in science, so people don't fuck it all up by their religion-driven ignorance.

On a personal note, I'm wondering why you're even bothering to take a science class.

[Megan1]

I’m not studying evolution in high school, never have. My science classes don’t teach it. I’m currently learning things like PH levels, amino acids, etc. And I have a B in science.

I just explained why the timing that scientists use is wrong. Read the last post of mine that you quoted.

The person who originally brought up evolution in this thread was talking about Adam and Eve and why evolution supposedly disproves them. I know that wasn’t you. And the bible doesn’t say that the rib bone is what determined Eve’s gender, it just said that God used it to make her. It doesn’t say how her gender was determined. Plus, it doesn’t try to say that all humans are made that way. That’s just how the first 2 humans were, and from there God set up the system of reproduction.

I understand more of what evolution is now from your posts and reading those links that you posted. I understand that it is scientifically possible. I understand that both the bible and evolution can’t be proven or disproven, and that you can't really believe both.....so you have to choose which one to believe. I chose God.

And why am I bothering to take a science class? Because my school requires it and I would prefer to graduate and get to go to college….

[ATP747]

Originally Posted by Megan1

I understand more of what evolution is now from your posts and reading those links that you posted. I understand that it is scientifically possible. I understand that both the bible and evolution can’t be proven or disproven, and that you can't really believe both.....so you have to choose which one to believe. I chose God.

You can easily believe both. God and evolution aren't mutually exclusive.

Google "theistic evolution;" Wikipedia has a good article on it.

[OMFG!You'reActuallySmart!]

Originally Posted by Megan1

I’m not studying evolution in high school, never have. My science classes don’t teach it. I’m currently learning things like PH levels, amino acids, etc. And I have a B in science.

Then you should be able to understand what the basic premises of science are yet you haven't been showing that on this thread. If your science classes don't teach evolution, then how and where did you obtain the incorrect information regarding evolution? Did someone tell it to you one day or did you take the effort and look it up on a non-scientific website?

Originally Posted by Megan1

I just explained why the timing that scientists use is wrong. Read the last post of mine that you quoted.

Your explanation involved god putting a curse on the Earth and having it age faster. That is not a scientific explanation. If you're going to say the scientific timing method is incorrect, then give a scientific explanation.

Originally Posted by Megan1

The person who originally brought up evolution in this thread was talking about Adam and Eve and why evolution supposedly disproves them. I know that wasn’t you. And the bible doesn’t say that the rib bone is what determined Eve’s gender, it just said that God used it to make her. It doesn’t say how her gender was determined. Plus, it doesn’t try to say that all humans are made that way. That’s just how the first 2 humans were, and from there God set up the system of reproduction.

The rib bone of Adam is what was used to make Eve. I never said it was used for sex determination. To quote myself, I said "...not to mention Eve was made from a bone from Adam". After that I mentioned sex determination in the fetus. This answer though makes no sense. For god to set up the system of reproduction after Adam and Eve were made, that means they were first living with no gentialia and no reproductive system then suddenly, *BAM*, they got some.

Originally Posted by Megan1

I understand more of what evolution is now from your posts and reading those links that you posted. I understand that it is scientifically possible. I understand that both the bible and evolution can’t be proven or disproven, and that you can't really believe both.....so you have to choose which one to believe. I chose God.

They are not mutually exclusive, you can believe in both. Alternatively, you can believe in what ATP747 mentioned of theistic evolution, although that's not considered scientific. Some of my professors are religious and of them, one of them taught an advanced comparative evolutionary biology course. He never once mentioned he was religious, never included religion in his lectures and the way I found out was from anecdotal evidence, then later seeing he wore a little cross on a thin chain (which is funny because for our final exam he came in wearing a hat with devil-like horns).

Why do you think they are mutually exclusive? Is it because one is science and one is religion? Charles Darwin was religious (or agnostic), assisted local churches and obtained a Bachelor's degree in theology. He once said:
"Science has nothing to do with Christ, except insofar as the habit of scientific research makes a man cautious in admitting evidence. For myself, I do not believe that there ever has been any revelation. As for a future life, every man must judge for himself between conflicting vague probabilities"

[Megan1]

This is going to be my last reply in this thread, because I hate debating and only start doing it when I think it is going to help someone…..which I thought it could here since I was promoting “walk by faith, not by sight”. However, after saying all that I can say, I know that saying any more is just going to annoy people or make them want to keep debating, and I don’t want to do either of those things.

I learned the original false information that I posted about evolution from people telling me, from random things on tv, and from a little bit of Googling.

There isn’t a scientific explanation for why scientists’ idea of timing is wrong and I never said that there was. There is only a God-based explanation that doesn’t involve science. That’s all that I can give you and I never claimed to have more than that.

God made Adam and Eve's reproductive systems when He formed them. The original 2 people were made straight from God’s hands, and the rest of the people were made from reproduction…..still from God’s hands, but also involving fetuses, eggs, etc. (and yes I know how that all works, I’m just not getting into detail here lol).

You can believe in a God and still believe in evolution, I know that. However, you can’t believe in the whole bible as fact and still believe in evolution (which is what I said). Even theistic evolution goes against the bible, even though it suggests that there is a God.

[OMFG!You'reActuallySmart!]

Originally Posted by Megan1

You can believe in a God and still believe in evolution, I know that. However, you can’t believe in the whole bible as fact and still believe in evolution (which is what I said). Even theistic evolution goes against the bible, even though it suggests that there is a God.

This begs the question, do you believe the entire bible as fact? If so, do you believe snakes talk to people, people living for 800+ years, etc...? You can say both are figurative interpretations of the bible but if so, they cannot be factual then. It seems you're saying you can believe in a god and evolution but not Christianity and evolution. However, I don't know of anything in the bible that prevents you from believing evolution.