Do your religious views clash with the idea of evolution?

1. 62

   Shakka Jamesposted 12 years ago

   Meaning, I want to know if you think evolution is a process of God's work. If you even believe in evolution.

   replyreport
   1. 59

      Disappearingheadposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      I do not believe that evolution and a belief that God created life the universe and everything are mutually exclusive. The bottom line is if an interpretation of the bible is in conflict with that which is revealed by scientific research, the bible interpretation is incorrect.

      replyreport
      1. 60

         a49eracctposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Agreed. So far, science has proven the Bible- so I guess God is doin' pretty good!

         replyreport
         1. 88

            wildernessposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Absolutely!  Science has proven beyond shadow of doubt that:
            
            The universe was created in total in 7 days, with light coming before stars.
            
            That the species of man did not evolve, but sprang from the dust of the earth full blown.  That woman originated from a rib of man, and that a sizable genetic pool is not necessary for perpetuating a species.
            
            That the earth was covered at one time in 5 miles of water, killing all life but for a handful on a handmade boat.  Again proving that a genetic pool is not necessary.
            
            That a man can and did survive for days immersed in the stomach acids of a living fish.
            
            That a man dead for 3 days came to life and walked about.
            
            Science as visited and measured both Hell and Heaven, taking reams of notes of the torture and happiness respectively.
            
            Isn't science wonderful, to have produced these absolute proofs of biblical fables?
            
            NOT

            replyreport
            1. 60

               a49eracctposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               UM DUH.
               Science has proven that there are springs under the ocean, mountain ranges under the ocean, that the 8th day is the best day to circumcize, the earth hangs in space, the earth revolves, the universe is expanding, amongst many others.
               I never said the stories happened, I said the science of the Bible was proven.

               replyreport
               1. 70

                  Cagsilposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  WOW!
                  
                  The Earth hangs in space? That's a new one for me. I've never heard someone say that.
                  
                  Maybe, you should go back to school.

                  replyreport
                  1. 60

                     a49eracctposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                     Thanks to physics...you must be one of the ones who takes everything literally.

                     replyreport
                     1. 70

                        Cagsilposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                        No, I don't. I take the words people mistakenly use in the context they put them in and then dispel the irrationality of said statements.

                        replyreport
                        1. 60

                           a49eracctposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                           Then what would you say about where the Earth is? It floats?

                           replyreport
                           1. 70

                              Cagsilposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                              Moving.

                              replyreport
                              1. 60

                                 a49eracctposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                                 Agreed, but it's surrounded by all these other galaxies. We know space isn't solid or liquid or anything like that...I think it's better to focus on the idea rather than the wording.

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 70

                                    Cagsilposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                                    Thank you for the laughs.
                                    The idea as you say gets skewed when people insert wrong words into their sentences when describing it.
                                    
                                    So, communication is just as important as the idea itself.

                                    replyreport
                                    1. 60

                                       a49eracctposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                                       Cag,
                                       My point still stands. There is no science in the Bible that scientists have proved false.

                                       report
                                       1. 70

                                          Cagsilposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                                          The fact that you think that science needs to do anything of the sort is part and parcel the skewed perception I speak about. Thank you for confirming.

                                          report
               2. 88

                  wildernessposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  Science isn't needed to prove springs occur under the ocean; walking around the surf will do that.
                  
                  Same for mountain ranges under the sea; walk around an island and you will quickly find that it isn't floating.  Besides, dirt is heavier than water and that was known even to the ancients.
                  
                  "Proven" that the 8th day is best for circumcision?  What about no circumcision at all - that seems to be the best bet of all, despite God's orders to do it.
                  
                  The earth revolves, yes - something the ancient biblical writers did not know.  Instead they thought the "heavens" revolved around the (flat) earth.
                  
                  They also had no idea of what the universe was and had no inkling it was expanding.
                  
                  Science has not proven biblical science false because there was no science in the bible.  Only assumptions and dreams of a people that had no understanding of anything past their own horizon.  Not surprising - that's how learning starts.  If we could only progress past those humble beginnings and accept that those assumptions and fantasies were only that - assumptions and fantasies with little connection to reality.
                  
                  I have to ask, though, how you determine which biblical "facts" were just stories and which were "bible science"?  The ones that turned out to be false were always just stories and the handful that happened to be true were "science"?  Now that's convenient!

                  replyreport
                  1. 60

                     a49eracctposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                     Simple,
                     The Bible was written in 4 different disciplines, and had many authors over the years. Some stories are metaphors, some poetry, some history, some are literal, etc. The only way to know is to go to the source itself, do the research, and come to a conclusion. It's not convenience, trust me. There are stories in the Bible I wish were written a different way, but they aren't...and as a believer of the Bible I have to accept that and go about my day.

                     replyreport
            2. 79

               ARSHAD MAJIDposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               @ Wilderness: What if Science proves it tomorrow. Scientific theories are never final.

               replyreport
               1. 70

                  Cagsilposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  A lie. The Scientific theory known as Gravity is final.

                  replyreport
                  1. 79

                     ARSHAD MAJIDposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                     But Gravity is not a theory, its a law.

                     replyreport
                     1. 61

                        cascolyposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                        actually, like evolution, it's both   - there's the LAW [aka actual observed fact] of evolution and of gravity, and there are the THEORIES that try to explain how and why these facts occur - eg, both Newton and Darwin discovered laws but their theories to explain these laws have been modified and improved as we learned more.
                        
                        unfortunately this ambiguity is often used disingenuously by creationists when they argue that evolution is 'just' atheory

                        replyreport
                        1. 61

                           Paul Wingertposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                           Those disillusional people don't what what a theory is. They mistake theory for a hypothesis. Theories do work or we wouldn't have electronics, air travel, etc, etc., the list stretches from here to the moon. One of purpose of a theory is to be disproven. If someone wants to disprove the Big Bang Theory, go for it. But first they'll have to disprove the existence and the laws of gravity, physics, chemistry, mathmatics, and atomic structure.

                           replyreport
               2. 60

                  a49eracctposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  Well, some are- some aren't. We are only human and are limited at what we can do to test things.

                  replyreport
               3. 88

                  wildernessposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  Are you really saying that because science may prove something to be true that we should accept it as fact before that proof is found?

                  replyreport
                  1. 79

                     ARSHAD MAJIDposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                     @ wilderness-- well; science and scientists are two different things. Evolution Theory of Charles Darwin, may be popular among scientists but its not scientifically proven yet and would be unfair to call it science. I think that you will have to believe in it like a religion until it is proven either way.

                     replyreport
   2. 61

      twosheds1posted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Evolution is not the product of a god's work. Whether or not I "believe" in evolution is irrelevant; it happened, and I can choose to accept it or not.
      
      So I guess my answer to your question would be no, they don't clash, because I have no religious beliefs.

      replyreport
   3. 0

      diyomarpandanposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Deleted
      1. 70

         Cagsilposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Now, that's too funny!

         replyreport
      2. 62

         Shakka Jamesposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Who uses the word "Negro" any more. Oh! I know "Filipinos". Or, shall I say "Flip" which stands for "Funny Little Asian People"

         replyreport
         1. 70

            Cagsilposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            
            
            
            
            
            
            
            
            
            
            
            
            
            
            
            
            
            
            
            
            
            
            
            
            
            
            
            
            
            
            

            replyreport
         2. 60

            recommend1posted 12 years agoin reply to this

            This is offensive - using derogatory words to describe their use and meaning or effect must be ok, or it would not be possible to discuss how negro IS a derogatory word, your retort is using a term in a derogatory sense and is not ok.    To be fair, we all do this from time to time, and especially many years ago when we were all still learning how offensive and damaging racism is.

            replyreport
   4. 79

      ARSHAD MAJIDposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      I like it that you called Evolution-- an idea.

      replyreport
   5. 84

      pennyofheavenposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Not so much work but the process is and of it, if that makes sense to you.

      replyreport
   6. 60

      a49eracctposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      My pastor spoke about this a while ago. There is a difference between micro and macro evolution. Let me clarify...macro says people came from monkeys, micro says survival of the fittest. So, to answer your question- no. I have always believed in evolution, and now have true belief in God after the sermon my pastor gave. Darwin proved species adapt, not that they turn into another species.

      replyreport
      1. 70

         Cagsilposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Actually both were proved, last time I checked. The human species adapts, internally and externally.

         replyreport
      2. 79

         ARSHAD MAJIDposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         @ a49erracct--  Very Good way to explain indeed. The micro evolution was confused with macro because if man was monkey, then what was monkey before becoming monkey-- a mouse ???

         replyreport
      3. 59

         Disappearingheadposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Study of the human and great ape genomes proves macro evolution. Why should some Christians be offended about the idea we both evolved from the same ancestor? Why should blind dogma overrule scientific research?

         replyreport
         1. 79

            ARSHAD MAJIDposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            @ Disappearinghead--  I think study of human and great ape genomes is a theory not a scientific principle. The big bang theory, the Einstein theory-- they are theories and you cannot call it blind dogma if someone does not consider it scientific principle. The macro evolution is like another religion and those who believe will also believe that the present day monkey must be a lizard or cockroach before it evolved into a fully developed monkey. The lizard must be a snail then ....

            replyreport
            1. 59

               Disappearingheadposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               What perhaps you understand as theory is actually a hypothesis. A hypothesis is an idea about how something might be, or how something might work. This generates tests and topics for research aimed with either objectively proving or disproving the hypothesis. When tests and research validate the hypothesis it becomes a theory. A theory is a network of knowledge, established facts, test results and research that build a model that is accepted by those in that area of scientific endeavour. A theory is not just an idea that may or may not be true.
               
               Macro evolution is not a religion. A religion is a belief in a supreme being/s and/or spirit entities not of this world with which we can communicate with via prayer and/or ceremonies, and hope that aforementioned beings will also communicate back to us. Macro evolution is a scientific principle supported by observation, research, and testing in areas such as genetics, palaentolology, zoology.........

               replyreport
               1. 78

                  kirstenblogposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  +1

                  replyreport
               2. 79

                  ARSHAD MAJIDposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  @ Disappearinghead-- Thank you for explaining the hypothesis and theory in such detail. It would be more thankful if you elaborate on the difference between a theory and principle in science. Moreover; the macro evolution requires not any less amount of assumptions than any organised religion and that is why-- I called it "like a religion". 
                  
                  For me; all the species that are believed to be the ancestors of humans, were only different kinds of apes that went extinct. But one is still available called the Orangutan which is a proof that it was not the ape that turned into man. It is possible that some apes were very close to humans in resemblance but that does not necessarily mean that they were our grandfathers.  Just imagine that the dinosaurs have no proof that they were evolved, nor they were turned into any other present day lizards.  The evidence regarding macro evolution is extremely insufficient, unless you want to believe in it like a religious bigot.

                  replyreport
                  1. 59

                     Disappearingheadposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXdQRvSd … ata_player

                     replyreport
                     1. 79

                        ARSHAD MAJIDposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                        Thanks for sending the link. I watched it with keen interest and it can make anyone become an atheist so easily specially those who like to keep things simple.
                        
                        But again it is an assumption that it is only the difference of one chromosome that we have less-- that made us so much better than our ancestors (apes). This is over simplifying things. It means that the million times more intelligence that we have as compared to a monkey,  is because we have one chromosome less than a monkey.... It even implies that the less chromosomes you have, the better specie you become... These are the reasons why I consider atheism as another religion as you have to assume that certain scientific considerations are the whole and there are no other details,  that distinguish between two species.
                        
                        Moreover; this relation of ape and human was first reported by an organised religion which said that certain group of humans were made monkeys due to their bad conduct in this world. I don't give the credit to Darwin for establishing this link.
                        
                        We are even very close related to a mouse in terms of DNA, which is why most drugs are tested on mice before they are approved for humans. But that does not mean that our ancestors could be mice. Our DNA is more similar to a mouse than it is to dog, but a dog is more intelligent like us. There has to be some explanation to this anomaly. I hope that science will one day reach that stage when we get all the answers-- until then we can enjoy argumentation.

                        replyreport
         2. 60

            a49eracctposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Yes we share the same genome. We also are similar to goats and other animals. That doesn't mean humans evolved from them...animals also share the genes. We can adapt internally, many kids are born without an appendix. Some without their wisdom teeth. Externally we have learned to walk upright. We are shorter than ancient peoples and not nearly as sting. This is not macro evolution, its micro.

            replyreport
            1. 60

               a49eracctposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               Animals share * not as strong *

               replyreport
            2. 60

               a49eracctposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               Share the same* sorry, I'm on a kindle...

               replyreport
               1. 79

                  ARSHAD MAJIDposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  Thanks a49eracct for enlightening us about the micro and macro evolution. Its a very good argument infect.

                  replyreport
                  1. 60

                     a49eracctposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                     Thanks. I think its hard for people to understand the difference, and sometimes it doesn't make sense to them how a Christian can believe in evolution.

                     replyreport
                     1. 59

                        Disappearingheadposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                        There is a huge wealth of scientific testing, observation and research that demonstrates macro evolution as a fact. If 98% of scientists are satisfied that evolution is undeniable, why would a Christian choose to ignore them and the evidence?
                        
                        It comes down to who you trust: peer reviewed reputable scientist at the cutting edge of research or a pastor's literal reading of Genesis who hasn't taken any interest in science since high school?

                        replyreport
                        1. 79

                           ARSHAD MAJIDposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                           @ Disappearinghead-- I remember that there was a time when mother's milk was bad and baby formula through bottle was good and 98% scientists agreed to that. Or for that matter margarine was better than butter or aspartame (artificial sweeterner) was safe.  The list is quite long about scientific claims that later turned out to be exactly opposite.

                           replyreport
                           1. 59

                              Disappearingheadposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                              Those claims we're motivated by corporations trying to sell you something. Science is an objective search for truth. To claim the biblical account in Genesis is science or an objective search for truth is simply not true.

                              replyreport
                              1. 60

                                 a49eracctposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                                 The science in the Bible has all been proved. The Bible doesn't talk about evolution, so that is where we do rely on scientists, archaeologists in this case. They have not proved that man comes from monkey, and even if we did it only makes God more amazing. But since we didn't - we know that man is made up of elements found in the Earth. So genesis is right, we came from the dirt.

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 78

                                    kirstenblogposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                                    Name one thing that's been proven, and provide the verifiable evidence that it's been proven please.

                                    replyreport
                                    1. 60

                                       a49eracctposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                                       The earth floats in space, there are springs underwater, mountains under the ocean, etc. There is no way the people who wrote the Bible could have known these things. http://www.thejesuscommandment.com/proof.html

                                       report
                                       1. 78

                                          kirstenblogposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                                          I contest that simple observation would lead people to realise all of these things without need of a bible. Pagan religions also understood these concepts, does that make them true too? Or is it more likely that a reasonably intelligent mind could make observations and come to these same conclusions even tho they don't have the ability to test that their conclusions to ensure they are accurate. I mean, at the end of the day, everything floats in space, no big leap to assume we do too.
                                          
                                          There are springs underwater, well your link says that but the first passage you give doesn't. It does mention the springs of the great deep but that is a vague at best reference (it could also be a reference to the vast amounts of water stored under Africa for instance, not enough to flood the planet mind you).
                                          It also speaks to one of my reasons for thinking the bible is a poorly written story book. Have you ever thought about just how much water it would take to cover the earth? To cover mountain ranges that are high enough to have their peaks in what is known as 'the death zone' (an area so high that oxygen in too thin to be safe, were human and animal life dies). God had everyone floating on a boat at this hight, right! Pull the other one, it has bells on!
                                          We could go on and talk about the genetic hit that all life would take by being reduced to a handful of breeding pairs. Most species need FAR more genetic diversity then Noah is reported to have allowed on the arc. Humans alone cannot survive as a species with the genetic diversity of one man and his family (extended to include sons and wives). Frankly, genetic degradation would have wiped them out.
                                          So out of the first reference your site gives to support its claim about the bible is vague at best, easily argued (I really don't think it means what you want it to mean). To me it sounds like a random way of explaining something you want to be true but have no proof of at all. Similar to how in sci-fi a story writer will make up 'science' to explain how something they invented for the story works (oddly, sometimes that stuff ends up inspiring science and is actually pretty accurate, thats just good story telling, it's not like sci-fi can be called real just because they hit on some scientific principle before it was known at all).
                                          What we do have just from the first reference your site gives is one of my biggest reasons for saying that the bible is a badly written book by men with no real understanding or knowledge to speak of. The story of Noah shows their ignorance of both just how big the world is, how much it would take to flood it and how unlikely it would be to be survivable (not enough oxygen to breathe, not enough genetic diversity to maintain the species, ours or others).
                                          When faced with this argument most people say to me that you cannot take the bible literally. I say, well I don't, I don't take one word to be literal, and I find mother goose better for moral lessons! Claims of God? Well, you can't take the bible literally you know? Probably can't take God literally either then eh?
                                          So, either it's a completely made up book that isn't meant to be taken literally or....
                                          It's a completely made of book meant to deceive those who take it literally. Either way, it has no credibility with me.
                                          
                                          I really must go for a walk now but I do hope to come back later and address your points further.

                                          report
                                    2. 60

                                       a49eracctposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                                       Sorry for the wait, somehow I overlooked it while scrolling through(still getting used to how hubpages forum works). Anyway, the people of the Bible did not know how big the world was. As far as they knew all that existed was them and the lands they traveled through (what we know as the middle east). So, for them that's what "the whole Earth" was. So not only can we not (always) take the Bible literally, we also have to put it in the context/knowledge of the people who wrote it.

                                       report
                                       1. 78

                                          kirstenblogposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                                          No prob about the wait, these days most of my conversations on here go on for days simply because I don't have the time to chat all day on the forums (fun when you can do it, but nothing else gets done LOL). With a baby on the way (a month left!) I am not letting myself get to carried away with things that are not very productive to either building my online earnings or getting the flat ready for the baby. So long as you don't mind, I don't either (oh and since I have a doctors appointment that I will have to spend most of the day getting to, walking, in HOT weather, yikes, I probably wont get to continue my post from yesterday until maybe later today but most likely tomorrow)
                                          
                                          As for the bible, if the claim that God inspired the bible can be believed, God would know how the big the earth was. I can't believe in a God who would overlook such an obvious fiction in a biblical story as to say the whole earth was covered with water. It seems far far more likely that these are stories written by men with no Godly inspiration/interference at all. In addition to the lack of God making sure folks don't put falsehoods in what is supposed to be his uncorrupted book, the story of the flood explains explicitly that the flood is an inescapable punishment from God in which ONLY Noah and his extended family and the animals on the arc were spared. This simply cannot be said by a truthful bible since people outside the realms that the authors knew about most likely did survive, unaffected. This leads to a possibility of escaping God's wrath, which the bible (specifically this story we are discussing) says is not possible. A clear contradiction to my mind.
                                          The bible, like most religious books/stories/myths will sometimes get lucky, hits on a somewhat accurate if vague observation about the world while ascribing it to their God/s and create the sort of 'proof' that seems to satisfy some but not me. Pagan Mayans were able to predict a calendar with the major solar events (eclipses and such) accurately, beyond the year 2012 (one calendar stops there and that's the one we found first, hence all the fun stories about the end of the world, but other more extensive mayan calendars have also been found).
                                          This is not something I can consider proof that the bible is scientifically backed up, this reference is too vague, coming from a story that science would NOT back up as even possible (maybe because uninspired men who had no business speaking for God wrote it, so no God to help them get the story right). To be honest, for me, this description is how I would describe liquefaction, when water is pushed up from deep under the earth because of an earthquake. If ancient man saw liquefaction happening it might well lead him to draw conclusions from his observations that could only be verified today. He might also be inclined to ascribe it to whatever God or Gods he believes in at the time, his proof would not be proof of a God, only proof that he was observant with a desire to explain what he observes.

                                          report
      4. 61

         twosheds1posted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Humans did not come from monkeys. Monkeys and humans evolved from a common ancestor. There is quite a difference.

         replyreport
      5. 61

         cascolyposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         sorry, but your pastor needs to learn some biology - evolution works on both the micro & macro level.  science does NOT say people came from mnokeys - instead monkeys & humans evolved from a common ancestor millions of years ago.   one hint about Darwin's ideas might be to look at the title: "On the Origin of SPECIES" -- ie, how natural selection leads to new species

         replyreport
         1. 60

            a49eracctposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            The only difference between micro and macro is time. Micro is something we see over a few hundred years, while macro is something we see anything greater than that. Species change within in their species (birds will always be birds), but species do not change (lizards do not become birds). Most of what I said had nothing to do with my pastor, but rather things that I know because I learned them.

            replyreport
   7. 85

      Richawriterposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Hey Shakka James.
      
      It is all unproven and anything I say is undoubtedly a bucket load of conjecture, however, I am fond of mulling over and discussing the possibilities when it comes to a subject as shrouded in mystery as these two most certainly are.
      
      As I am on the fence, curiously watching the two worlds on either side - believers in God and non-believers - I have that wonderful luxury of creating whatever worlds I see fit in my imagination, while waiting for some long lost proof to illuminate the world and unite us once and for all.
      
      
      My Short and Sweet Theory (created this second)
      
      If evolution is indeed responsible for all life and for the development of life on Earth, then the question remains: Who or what developed this cycle of evolution? 
      
      Something can not come from nothing? Can it? Impossible.
      
      Therefore we (or rather 'I' want to) have to 'assume' evolution or any other process causing the existence of life (on Earth and anywhere else)  must have been conceived by 'some-thing' or 'one.'
      
      Something comes from something so what is this something?
      
      It could be another higher being, like a god or like 'God' and in fact it has to be a 'thing' either living or created by another living 'thing' in order for 'it' to conceive of life.
      
      It appears to be a cycle of infinity, the 'thing' which created us was created by another 'thing' and that 'thing' by another 'thing' - etc etc, on into infinity.
      
      Great question and really sparked my imagination into life, as you can see!   

      replyreport
2. 70

   Cagsilposted 12 years ago

   Belief in evolution? No need for belief.
   
   As for G/god's work? What G/god?

   replyreport
   1. 59

      PseudoLogicposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Cagsil, please educate me, I am quite ignorant in the realms of science and evolution and not entirely sure what to believe about any of it, or any religious dogma that tries to prove or disprove it. There seems to be so much distortion on just about every subject there is to talk about in the world, that it has lead me to really not care anymore. However, this thread has awoken some old curiosity in me that has been lying dormant for a while, so please offer me a helping hand in making sense of all of this.
      I am aware of the big bang theory, I've heard of the Genesis 7 day creation (a little too much), I know what the scientific method is, but I'm still extremely lost and confused about all of it. So to begin with, taking in mind my limited understanding of science; let me go ahead and get to the question(s) so that you can fill in those empty spaces that have left me so confused over the years.
      (1)The first Law of Thermodynamics states that matter and energy is neither created nor destroyed. This leaves me extremely puzzled. The reason being is simply put: I am nothing but matter and energy, and so is the entire universe, but I (as well as the universe) exist.
      (2)A scientific law states that this is impossible. The very existence of this scientific law completely contradicts the reality we live in, yet it is a naturalistic law that CANNOT be broken. That for me to even exist and ponder these things is an impossibility. How could this be?
      (3) I feel like the only way around this obstacle is for the law to have been broken. Had the law not been broken, nothing would exist (according to the law). This is simply driving me insane!
      (4)Assuming the law was broken for myself and the universe to come into existence, wouldn't this mean that something supernatural occurred?
      I have pondered this long and hard, and perhaps I am just inept, but I can't seem to find a way around this. I feel like this scientific law practically proves that supernatural things CAN, and DO occur and that one DID occur when the universe came into existence. How could anything exist without this law being broken? Do you see my problem? Any insight into whatever it is I do not understand would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.
      
      -Ryan

      replyreport
      1. 70

         Cagsilposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Educate you? I don't even know who you are. You've made 5 posts to the forums and you've not written any hubs to figure out anything about you.

         replyreport
         1. 59

            PseudoLogicposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            I really don't see how knowing "who I am" is relevant whatsoever to the question I asked you, nor the amount of posts to forums or hubs I have written. Why do you need to "figure" something out about me to answer a simple question? Shall I provide my name and address first? Age and weight perhaps? Do I need a minimum post count before having the audacity to address you? 10 posts? 100? At least 5 hubs? How very silly. It really is interesting that you decided to discredit me through turning to my number of forum posts and hubs rather than actually address the question I asked you. You know, there is actually a name for that in conversation, it is called an Ad hominem and is a logical fallacy, or as some call it, an "informal fallacy".
            
            Surely you have an answer for me? Or is your entire belief system based on nothing? As far as I can tell, running away from a question is always a bad sign. If you can't even answer that question for yourself, I would highly recommend reconsidering why you believe what you believe. G'day

            replyreport
            1. 70

               Cagsilposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               Actually, sure it's relevant, but to you it's not. To me it is.
               Because, background on you would be nice. Some information about you is necessary to understand your intent.
               Trolls are not worth answering. Feeding a troll is like feeding cat, it will continue to come back for more.
               Actually, I didn't discredit you or what you asked. You're the one who said "educate me". And exactly how am I supposed to educate you when I have no clue what you know already. Repeating things you already know is meaningless. So much for your Logic. Yeah, it's pseudo alright.
               Really? And what you're doing is called "Trolling".
               Actually, I'm not required to answer any questions posed by you. Until you've managed to not be a troll, conversation with you is useless, meaningless and unproductive. Some people might bite, like Wilderness who did answer your post, but I won't be bothered except to post this response.
               Beliefs? Am I supposed to have beliefs? Hmmmm.....Life is ever changing, so beliefs would be work in the same manner.
               This is coming from someone who is trolling the forums...
               And, if you're not a troll, then I suggest you get busy instead of picking a fight/argument with someone who you know nothing about.

               replyreport
               1. 59

                  PseudoLogicposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  My intent is clearly stated, to ask a question addressed to you. Which I did. If you couldn't understand that, then I do offer online reading comprehension classes for a small monthly fee. As for trolls, this is another irrelevant subject you have meticulously pieced together in order to sway away from the original topic even further. Are you really that afraid to answer my question? To even try? Does it really make you that uncomfortable? As for "educate me", this is just a simple euphemism, with a pretty clear meaning: Answer my question and inform me of what I clearly am not understanding through my question. Was it really that hard to understand? Sorry I'm so confusing

                  replyreport
                  1. 70

                     Cagsilposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                     And, you still don't get it. I'm not required to answer your question or did you miss that in my statement.
                     
                     You decided to pick on a post of mine, which was self-explanatory. I don't need reading comprehension assistance nor do I require to expand on what I posted initially. Enjoy your trolling.

                     replyreport
                     1. 59

                        PseudoLogicposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                        Next time that you decide from the start you aren't going to answer someone's question, try not to hide behind irrelevant excuses, and just say nothing, or "I'm not going to answer that question". You'll have more respect for yourself next time you look in the mirror, I promise Bye now

                        replyreport
      2. 88

         wildernessposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Although I suspect you are being intentionally obtuse, I will try.
         
         Before the big bang there was nothing.  No matter, no energy, no space, no time, no physical laws.  Nothing but perhaps a singularity and we have no real idea of what that is.
         
         At the instant of the big bang, all of these came into being.  We don't know of a cause, or if there was one.  Quantum mechanics seems to say there need not be a cause for that or many other things on the quantum level.  Supernatural intervention might have happened, but there is no evidence or necessity for it.
         
         After the instant of the big bang energy changed to mass in limited quantities, mass which slowly collected into clumps of matter as we know and understand it and became stars, planets and, eventually, you.
         
         No laws were broken during the big bang as there were no laws to break.

         replyreport
         1. 59

            PseudoLogicposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Ah, the big bang, although relevant, this is almost an entirely different topic to me with many bases to cover, so let's just try and stick to the original topic for now.
            
            Your overall point seems to be that the first law of thermodynamics was not broken in order for non-existence to become existence, because during non-existence, there were no laws to be broken. Interesting approach, but I'm afraid it still doesn't quite make it over the obstacle.
            
            To say that the first law of thermodynamics is untrue at ANY time period, no matter the circumstance, is practically proving naturalism, and science, to be unreliable. You are practically saying that a scientific law does not apply to how existence came about. Therefore, we can assume that it is possible that NO scientific laws, theories, hypothesis, or explanations, can be in any way reliable as to explaining how existence came about. This approach is a naturalistic approach, and your explanation proves why it is insufficient, and why something outside the realm of the "natural" had to occur in order for things to be.

            replyreport
            1. 88

               wildernessposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               "To say that the first law of thermodynamics is untrue at ANY time period..."
               
               Read a little closer, please, and then explain just what time period you refer to.  In particular , re-read " No matter, no energy, no space, no time, no physical laws" with particular attention paid to the now bolded words.
               
               I don't "practically" say a current scientific law does not apply to the big bang, I made it very very clear.  There may have been physical laws to whatever or however that singularity existed, but if so we haven't the foggiest what they might have been.  The first law of thermodynamics was certainly not one of them, though, as that law came about through the big bang.

               replyreport
               1. 59

                  PseudoLogicposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  It doesn't matter if there is no energy, no space, no time, no physical laws, it is impossible for something to come out of that due to the current law we have now that went into effect as soon as anything existed. This is the method science uses to make sense of the world we live in, and according to our understanding of science, it is impossible for something to have come from nothing, therefore, the fact that something DID come from nothing, means that something super natural occurred. I really don't see how else to view it. Nothing, became something, human reason along with observing how this can never happen (thus the first law) proves this without a doubt.

                  replyreport
                  1. 60

                     a49eracctposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                     ...You came on here asking to be educated, and now you are the one educating?

                     replyreport
                     1. 59

                        PseudoLogicposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socratic_method (Y)

                        replyreport
                     2. 88

                        wildernessposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                        Insisting that mankinds ignorance of the mechanics of universal creation is proof of God isn't teaching.  At most it is proof that the probability of Gods existence, however low, is still above zero.
                        
                        That kind of thinking is what kept us in the dark ages for centuries, believing in fairies and trolls as irrefutable factual creatures.  And Gods of various types, names and locations.

                        replyreport
                        1. 61

                           cascolyposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                           you seem to want it both ways - you reject ' fairies and trolls as irrefutable factual creatures' but put gods in a different  category, when in fact, they're all the same - the probability that there is a god is roughly the same as that for fairires and hobgoblins - not zero, but not worth spending your life worrying about

                           replyreport
                           1. 88

                              wildernessposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                              !!??  If that's what you read into my post I failed to express myself adequately.
                              
                              I agree 100% - the probability that God exists is about the same as fairies.  Slightly more, perhaps, as God is supposedly from another undiscovered universe, or dimension or something while fairies violate natural biological laws while being from our own universe.  I guess they come from earth anyway?

                              replyreport
                        2. 60

                           recommend1posted 12 years agoin reply to this

                           I can agree all the way to the point of trolls and fairies not being factual creatures - and by the way  - this has nothing to do with the argument between reason and superstition.
                           
                           Somewhere near Singapore stone age remains have been found of a race of people just a tad higher than 1 metre tall who hunted pygmy elephants!  more recently similar discoveries have been made in China of the remains of even smaller people from about 14,000 years ago.  Myths and memories might well be talking about different races of people that actually existed as the standard big guys expanded their territories and pushed any weaker races out and to eventual extinction (as they appear to have done with Neanderthal man).  The biblical references to giants and 'sinful' cross-breedings of various kinds cannot be totally discounted as myth and may be based at least partly in fact.
                           
                           That small people pushed to the edges of human occupation might have existed at one time and been fantasised into fairies, elves, goblins, trolls etc etc is possible.  The existence of a god is quite another matter and comes from a different kind of imaginative process.

                           replyreport
                           1. 88

                              wildernessposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                              Ah, but fairies are flying humanoid intelligent creatures about 1" tall (the biology doesn't work) and trolls are semi-intelligent creatures but humanoid in only the strictest sense (2 arms, 2 legs, head).  More like a gorilla perhaps, but far more intelligent and able to speak understandable english.
                              
                              Seriously, such stories often have at least some basis (or possible basis) in fact, but then so do Gods.  Somebody is throwing those lightning bolts, after all, and somebody is causing plagues and famines as well.  Somebody created the earth and its creatures - the name for that somebody is given as "God".
                              
                              As evidence of this I present the posts from Pseudologic, above, who is claiming it is impossible for our universe to create itself - there has to be a creator causing it to happen.  It all sounds quite logical and reasonable until one realizes that the "proof" being offered is only our ignorance of the specifics of that creation.

                              replyreport
                              1. 60

                                 recommend1posted 12 years agoin reply to this

                                 As you know I agree in general  - but there is no somebody throwing or needing to throw lightning and there is no history af any ceature real or imagined that can control lightning - except the pure myth of a supernatural being.   Fairies on the other hand can be grown from reality given a race af small, even very small, people embellished with fancy and story tellers,  trolls can similarly be grown from the reality of the way strange people were treated in history - the symptoms that elephant man exhibited were not tolerated and the victim either killed or ostracised - not hard to grow a troll from this I think, or storybook giants, or goblins or . . .
                                 
                                 Gods do not have any basis in observable oddities, only in the imagination.

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 88

                                    wildernessposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                                    I must respectfully disagree.  It was completely obvious, at the time, that something caused lightning, and that that something was intelligent.  Nothing else could wield that kind of power.  That the something could not be seen was immaterial - it was still there.
                                    
                                    We even have analogous things today - who has seen an electron?  Yet we believe it to be there as we can see the effects of it.  We may not be able to see that jet in the sky, but we know one is there from the vapor trail it leaves.  Just like the ancients knew there was a god from the lightning it threw.

                                    replyreport
                                    1. 60

                                       recommend1posted 12 years agoin reply to this

                                       You are making up your own beliefs here  - "It was completely obvious, at the time, that something caused lightning, and that that something was intelligent.  Nothing else could wield that kind of power. "
                                       obvious there was a cause but I very much doubt if for one moment they considered it intelligent.  This is your own imagination at work in the same way that gods are made.
                                       
                                       This is not to argue with you per se, I am just pointing out the different sources of myth and fable.  Well preserved prehistoric fossils in China kinda lie around the place, It is not hard to myth up dragons from the huge heads with rows of fantastic teeth, the huge claws and the rocks imprinted with metre wide wings - these are things either seen or remembered and teh myths that surround them are based in some kind of real material,  imaging people imagining intelligence behind lightning is not based in fact but only as a conjecture, a fancy, an invention - and this is where gods were invented.

                                       report
                  2. 59

                     PseudoLogicposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                     Don't you see how limited naturalism is? If there can be absolutely nothing, with no science at all, no laws, why is it so improbable for something super natural to exist? Right now there are scientific laws that say super natural things do not occur. For instance: something cannot be created from nothing. That is super natural, because of a natural law. But if there was a time when there was no natural law to bind the super natural phenomenon (IE before the big bang), then something super natural could have occurred, because there was nothing there to say it couldn't.

                     replyreport
                     1. 61

                        cascolyposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                        your proposal that 'god did it' is just as limited - it just pushes the question back a step - where did god come from, and where was she before anything existed?

                        replyreport
                     2. 88

                        wildernessposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                        Are you confusing natural laws concerning macro events with those concerning subatomic events and items?  They are very much different, you know.  Circumstances very often change "laws" - consider the rate of atomic decay in a radioactive material.  It is constant at all times.  At least until the velocity of the chunk of material changes to near light speed.  Or until it approaches a large secondary mass.  Then the laws change, which we didn't used to know.
                        
                        You keep insisting that the laws concerning your limited understanding of macro events also apply to the quantum world, but it isn't so.  No supernatural abilities or gods needed, the laws just don't apply the same anymore.  The more we learn, the more our understanding of the world around us - at least if we accept that we don't already know everything.
                        
                        Not to say that science denies supernatural phenomenon.  Just supernatural phenomenon in this universe; what happens in any other hypothetical universes is unknown and unguessable.  Did the big bang actually take place in another, different universe?  A universe of gods that caused it to happen?   Is our entire universe contained in another supernatural (by definition) universe?  Possible, but unknowable at this time.  Should we then assume it to be true simply because we don't understand everything about this universe?  You must decide that for yourself.

                        replyreport
                  3. 88

                     wildernessposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                     Your statements simply have no basis in fact at all.  We see elementary particles popping into and out of existence all the time, without any cause we can determine.  We see electrons leaving one location and appearing in another without have transversed the intervening distance.  There, gone, back again somewhere else. 
                     
                     Mankind has a long history of demanding that things aren't possible because it hasn't been seen or done yet.  Flying, going to the moon, going around the flat plane of earth; the list is endless.
                     
                     That the concept of nothingness, that things can come into being from nothing, that effects don't require a cause; these are all things outside of our normal day to day experience, but that does not mean they cannot happen or exist.  The study of physics and cosmology has progressed to the point that the normal existence we all experience has almost nothing in common with what we are now finding out.
                     
                     We also may be misunderstanding each other with the term "supernatural"; technically I suppose it means anything we don't understand, but I take it to mean such things as Gods, spirits, demons, actions that violate natural laws (whether we understand them completely or not) etc. 
                     
                     Many of the things we have declared to be supernatural are instead quite natural, following natural laws.  Others are still undefined, or defined in such a way as to be unprovable either way (Gods from another dimension we can't access, for instance) by any means. 
                     
                     We may have to agree to disagree on this supernatural thing in the end.  We know the big bang happened; the cause is still in the air if there is a cause at all.  I state "I don't know" as to any cause while you make up an unprovable story of God(s) from another universe causing it and declare it to be truth because you don't know, either.  You can do that, of course, and if it keeps you happy have at it.  What you cannot do is convince me that a fable, no matter how old or how well accepted, is truth without any evidence whatsoever outside of our mutual ignorance of what actually happened or why.

                     replyreport
3. 49

   fawn backstopposted 12 years ago

   Short answer at bottom.
   
   If you mean "evolution" as in we came from primordial  ooze, the answer is no.  The most active theory is that in the ooze that was prevalent on Earth, everything was just right to begin life and then, bam, lightening struck and we had life.  The number one thing that is wrong with this is: where did the ooze come from, for that matter, where did the Earth come from.  Those that project this are projecting a theory, based on a theory that has not been proven.   It just goes downhill from there.  Such things as life begin in the sea and crawled out onto land.  I ask them, why?   Was it unhappy there?   It had to evolve to survive on land because land was not its’ natural habitat.  Evolve means generations of change.  Does this mean that the same creature was constantly coming out of its’ natural habitat into one in which it could not live; and then its procreated and these creatures did the same thing?  This hints at rational thought; I want to go out of my habitat, I need to, I have to find a way to.  But, gee, the theory does not imply rational thought.  As a matter of fact the scientists who promote evolution stress that man had to evolve into rational thought.  My head is spinning.
   If I am going to have to believe in something by Faith alone; I will stick with "God created" the world and everything in it.  Don’t ask where He came from because I will just ask – where did the stuff come from that caused the “Big Bang” that supposedly created Earth.   Same difference, Faith that something or someone was there.   Bottom line; my Bible says that God created the world.  Remember it had to come from somewhere.  Creating the Earth is so awesome, why would He have to practice making a man; and why start with ooze.  If it is going to: walk, talk, and think, start solid, upright, and with a brain, logical, right?   It just makes more sense.  Evolution and belief in God the Creator do not mix.    Scientists can create a computer using the human brain as a pattern.  They can clone something.  But, they just prove that:  In the beginning Someone created…….  Sounds like playing God, does it not? This thinking is going in a circle.
   
   A circle, something without a beginning or an end, continous.   With evolution you just keep going.  With Faith in God, you begin with Him.  And by the way, it all ends with Him too.
   I do not argue it, I just believe it.
   
   If you didn’t follow all that, don’t blame me, it’s the theory of evolution that is confusing.  In college the Biology professor tried to stuff evolution down my throat.  I sat there and listened took no notes and answered the test questions ---- bet you guessed it ---- My God created the world and everything in it.  I did not come from ooze, I came from  a loving God who so loved me that he gave his only begotten son to save my soul.  And NO they can not clone souls.  So Heaven help us when they get to trying to clone a human person.

   replyreport
   1. 70

      Cagsilposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      This statement only proves you don't understand Evolution Theory. Good job.

      replyreport
   2. 79

      ARSHAD MAJIDposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Thanks Fawn Backstop--- I like your rational thought; now I know that evolution theory is a theory based on another theory-- sounds like another religion to me.

      replyreport
      1. 70

         Cagsilposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         You see that post as rational? Oh WOW!

         replyreport
   3. 84

      pennyofheavenposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      That was not a short answer, just so you know. You were a little ooze that successfully made it in to your your mothers egg. If you understand that. What is so hard about the world and everything starting with an ooze? Evolution have a theory on biological evolution. I don't think they have a hard and fast theory on the evolution of sentience yet?

      replyreport
4. 61

   Paul Wingertposted 12 years ago

   Jews (mainstream) and Catholics do not take Biblical stories literally and believe in evolution and the Big Bang. They say those two theories go hand in hand with their beliefs. As of now, one can insert God in evolution for the purpose of initially jump starting the process, but God shouldn't get too comfortable. There are too many theories, some seem realistic, some seem insane, on what jumpstarted life here on earth. But one has to consider, there's more suns in the cosmos than grains of sands on earth and since most of them have their own planets, what jumpstarted life on them, even if it's in the form of bacteria? The Big Bang deals with chemistry, physics and what we observe in outer space on a daily basis. We observe suns being born and die all the time and understand that process. When the Higgs Boson was discovered last week, when physicists had to recreate the first milliseconds of the Big Bang to find it, pretty much bumped God out of the equation. Gravity and the laws of physics, not God, are the creators of the universe.

   replyreport
   1. 74

      Mighty Momposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      So by that measure, the Christians who do not believe in evolution don't believe in themselves!
      Because their religions are evolved from the original religions of Judaism and Catholicism.
      

      replyreport
   2. 60

      a49eracctposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Then where did gravity and physics come from? That had to be created too, they don't just "happen".

      replyreport
   3. 60

      Blessed Hillposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      You have just contradicted yourself and proven that God exists. You said that physicists had to re-create the big bang. If physicists had to re-create it who created the 1st one. For a certain laws to work they have to be put to work. Nature doesn't have a mind of its own. Physicists had to put certain laws to work under very strict and regulated circumstances to duplicate what God did in the beginning. Funny how intelligent people can make foolish statements and call themselves experts in their field.

      replyreport
5. 61

   kathyinmnposted 12 years ago

   Why can't evolution is a process of God's work?
   
   After all, just how long is God's day?, don't you dare say 24 hours, if God is very where then he is on all the planets as well as earth, so Gods day is different from ours.
   
   Couldn't evolution be the process of God creating man? Molding and forming him until he's perfect in Gods eyes?

   replyreport
   1. 61

      Paul Wingertposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      The human body is far from perfect. The ability to walk upright does have some advantages, but there's a price to pay. Biology 101.

      replyreport
      1. 61

         kathyinmnposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         hummm....who said he was done Molding and forming?

         replyreport
         1. 61

            Paul Wingertposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            I certainly never said that. Humans, along with other animal species are still evolving to fit the ever changing environment.

            replyreport
6. 59

   Druid Dudeposted 12 years ago

   My religious/spiritual beliefs wallow in evolution. If God had not evolved (that is, changed in a fundamental way) then no creation would have taken place. We would not be here. Everything is built upon what has come before. Even this earth. It is written that God never changes. God never changes in that God is everchanging. Contradiction? Not really.

   replyreport
7. 82

   pstraubie48posted 12 years ago

   Not at all. Because by creation or evolution, God set it all in motion. So, either way to me is at once awesome and acceptable.
   That one of us could do such a wondrous thing is beyond imagining.

   replyreport
   1. 70

      Cagsilposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Yeah, it was the God of the gaps.

      replyreport
8. 59

   Druid Dudeposted 12 years ago

   Cag...you are one of the greats. Maybe.

   replyreport
9. 61

   bdhall8377posted 12 years ago

   What about Bible believing Christians who are also reputable scientists? There are innumerable scholars and scientists that are very well respected in the scientific community that disagree with evolution. I agree that micro-evolution is undeniable in the sense that an organism can make a small molecular change to adapt to a temporary circumstance, and later revert back to its original makeup. However the fact remains that for long-term, permanent evolution such as dinosaurs to birds, there is no proof to transition the theory to law. Transitional species would deal a great blow to creationism. Til then I choose to believe that I was created by heavenly Father that loves me and wants to spend eternity with me.
   
   I think one of the common misconceptions about Christians is that we have our head stuffed so far into the Bible that we are incapable of intellectually, and critically analyzing the scientifc facts presented. I have seen the evidence on both sides and come to the conclusion that 98% of the scientifc community are 98% sure of something but have never been able to prove it definitively and, therefore could be wrong. If something is discovered that proves evolution, then I would re-consider my stance.

   replyreport
   1. 59

      Disappearingheadposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      I guess you are not a reader of scientific journals.
      
      The line that there are innumerable scholars and respected scientists that disagree with evolution is a creationist fabrication. The truth is 98% of scientists accept evolution as proven fact.
      
      If you have stated your position as a creationist, then no amount of evidence to the contrary will convince you as you will continue move the goal posts.
      
      Creationist spend their time searching for that tiny chink in the evolution armour, but are oblivious to the fact that they are wearing none themselves. Creationists have never been able to prove their ideas as they are blind faith based, not evidence based.

      replyreport
      1. 61

         bdhall8377posted 12 years agoin reply to this

         If 98% percent  of scientists accept evolution as fact then what manner of scientists are they? What I mean is that if you accept as fact that which is not yet proven and still held as theory rather than scientific law then your stance is foundationally flawed.
         I do not accept creationism as fact because it is also unproven. However, I do not believe that biological evolution is as complete or ardent an account of earth's natural history as the scientific community make it out to be.
         
         I love science, but I believe evolution is flawed science. I also believe that the propegators of evolution maintain their convictions with the same close minded fervor often found in the various religious communities.
         
         Perhaps you could recommend a good read on this topic?

         replyreport
         1. 79

            ARSHAD MAJIDposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            @bdehall--- I am totally with you. Evolutionist now form another religion and the followers are not any more broadminded then the believers.

            replyreport
            1. 59

               Disappearingheadposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               Why do creationists keep saying evolution is a religion? Why don't the look up a dictionary?

               replyreport
               1. 73

                  lone77starposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  Bravo, @Disappearinghead!
                  
                  I read one "creationist" in Phoenix, Arizona named Brown who gave all manner of examples he called "evolutionary" that had nothing to do with biological evolution. It was a veritable alphabet soup of illogical thinking.
                  
                  Why do "creationists" have to use such crummy logic to support their poor (lazy and arrogant) interpretation of Holy Scripture? Could it be ego? Humility would be an instant cure, but they seem unwilling to go that far. They pretend to be humble, but cannot fathom being wrong about their understanding of scripture.
                  
                  I know for a fact that I do not fully understand scripture and that I have misunderstood great portions of scripture in the past, and likely even now. There is yet much more to learn.
                  
                  Brown said that an "evolving" Solar system was "evolutionary" and thus wrong! He cited the directions of moons in the Solar system as one reason that "evolutionary" scientists are wrong. Many moons do not orbit in a pro-grade direction and thus conflict with the neat and orderly formation of the Solar system from an "evolutionary" cloud of dust and gas. Wow! What a joke. I've been an amateur astronomer for the past 56 years and immediately saw though that lousy argument. Many of the moons of the larger planets are captured asteroids. A capture scenario could place a moon on the "left" or the "right" of the planet. One would place the moon in "pro-grade" orbit (counter-clockwise as seen from Solar North); the other would place the moon in "retrograde" orbit (clockwise). Busted! His argument was meaningless.
                  
                  So many "creationists" have to have the universe created about 6020 years ago, using Ussher's timeline as their guide.
                  
                  Ussher was a brilliant scholar for his day. His most famous work was published when Newton was only 7. But I bet even he would reject his timeline with what we know today. You see, he valued science and rigorous study. He would immediately see that there needed to be a different interpretation of scripture.
                  
                  In fact, I have found the needed biblical timeline. And it's a timeline fully compatible with those of science.
                  
                  Calling evolution a religion is every bit as much a farce as their use of the term "creation science," or Bush's use of "Patriot" to name the act which so trashed the American Constitution.

                  replyreport
         2. 59

            Disappearingheadposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Im not going to do your homework for you, you have the Internet.

            replyreport
            1. 61

               bdhall8377posted 12 years agoin reply to this

               That comment does nothing but show that you are unwilling to have an open minded debate. All I am asking is that you disclose where you got your information from so that I can critically examine it, the same way that I do the Bible and the evidence presented by scientists that argue for creationism.
               
               Also I didn't say that evolution is a religion, only that people who argue in favor of evolution commonly attack creationists for being close-minded or claim that their reasoning is flawed because it comes from religious inquiry rather than a scientific one.
               What I am proposing is that evolutionists act in a similar manner in that they seem unwilling to accept any other viewpoint as even a possibilty. And one could easily suggest that the their intent to keep God out of earth's natural history creates the exact same flaw in rational thinking.
               As evidence, I submit that twice I have explained that I look at things critically rather just accept the staus quo on either side. I have even stated that I do not accept creationism as it cannot be proven anymore than evolution. Yet still you respond as if I have somehow taken a definitive stand for creationism. Keep an open mind my friend.

               replyreport
         3. 61

            twosheds1posted 12 years agoin reply to this

            "Proven fact" probably wasn't the best choice of words. Evolution is a theory, yes, but in order to become a theory, it has to undergo rigorous testing across many disciplines. Evolution has passed all of this testing, and without evolutionary theory, most of biology and medical science would not work.
            "There are innumerable scholars and scientists that are very well respected in the scientific community that disagree with evolution."
            You got two terms wrong there: "innumerable" and "well-respected." There are a few outliers who refuse to believe what they witness with their own eyes, and they are not well respected by anyone but other creationists.
            
            " And one could easily suggest that the their intent to keep God out of earth's natural history creates the exact same flaw in rational thinking."
            One could, but one would be wrong. It is not science's "intent" to keep God out. God is simply not necessary, and no hypothesis that involves a supernatural agency has any supporting evidence or held up to scrutiny. Steven Weinberg said "Science doesn't make it impossible to believe in God, but science does make it possible to not believe in God."
            
            Good reads on this topic would include The Selfish Gene and Climbing Mount Improbable, both by Richard Dawkins..

            replyreport
            1. 61

               bdhall8377posted 12 years agoin reply to this

               Thank you for the suggestions!

               replyreport
            2. 73

               lone77starposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               @twosheds1, some nice and well-reasoned arguments, for the most part.
               
               I think you have scientific method a bit mixed up. Theory does not need to undergo rigorous testing across many disciplines before it becomes theory. Theory needs only one or more facts. The other name for this is "hypothesis." A hypothesis must then undergo rigorous testing after it becomes theory, but hey, it's already a hypothesis (theory). And it need not necessarily be examined by numerous disciplines. It depends on the area covered by the theory. Sometimes only one discipline will do. Certainly, a biological question crosses many boundaries, but Galileo's simple tests with gravity required only one discipline, one which he helped to build -- physics.
               
               Interesting quote from Weinberg, but hardly compelling. In a car repair shop, a mechanic hardly has to think of chocolate cake and baking times. In fact, the mechanic can quite easily believe that chocolate cake does not exist. If he's never seen it, that could be easy, but such disbelief is meaningless. It is an "argument to ignorance" type of logical fallacy. So long as he only works on cars, he has no need of chocolate cake, true. But his preoccupation with cars does nothing for chocolate cake.
               
               Science studies the products of God's creation. Science studies everything in the realm of continuity -- physical reality. Every subject of science has continuity -- both through space, time (persistence) and physical states (momentum, spin, etc). It is understandable how these "mechanics" (scientists) would not need to deal with the artist who created this work. They are only concerned with the work, itself. But I wonder if scientists will soon need to understand the two realms as they approach the boundary between them.
               
               Many scientists use "doubt" to investigate things. It's an imperfect tool. Scientific method requires that we not be biased, but skepticism contains the very potent bias of doubt.
               
               Thinking on science for half a century, I finally realized this simple truth. For the most part, skepticism works and works well, but only when it is the lighter, more refined version. Too many researchers descend into the darker side of skepticism -- unsupported dismissiveness and even self-indulgent ridicule -- all subjective and frequently destructive. One potent example of this is the ridicule suffered by North American anthropologists who dared to challenge the "Clovis first" dogma by digging below the Clovis horizon. Yes, even scientists can be so childish at times.
               
               Believers many times find themselves in this ego-ridden state too, and it makes their arguments that much weaker.
               
               A far better paradigm for science is that of restraint and humility. These do not contain the bias of doubt. In fact, the better kind of skepticism contains these along with doubt. Getting rid of the bias of doubt, one is left with pure restraint and humility -- the awe of a child looking for answers -- open to whatever the truth turns out to be. That's a true scientist.
               
               Science and creation are as different as oil and water -- perhaps even more so. But studying those differences can prove helpful to understanding the whole. Science deals with continuity; creation deals with discontinuity.
               
               Have you ever studied calculus? Discontinuities are a most interesting phenomenon in mathematics. Years ago, when I took my first year of calculus in college, the professor graphed the derivative of a particular function and suddenly I realized a relationship between physical reality and creation -- between ego and God.
               
               And then I realized the purpose of it all -- to reach that discontinuity so that we may return to God. But ego is full of continuity and will not fit through that dimensionless hole. That is the "self" of which Jesus spoke when he said that we need to give up the self in order to gain everlasting life. You see, God wants His children back, and He is not Homo sapiens.

               replyreport
               1. 61

                  twosheds1posted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  I must admit I don't really get the cake metaphor. Cake and auto mechanics aren't really related, whereas theoretical physics, evolutionary biology and "creation" are. All are concerned with origins. A physicist might not be concerned directly with biology, but it would affect his or her work indirectly, such as determining what conditions were conducive to the evolution of life on young planets.

                  replyreport
                  1. 59

                     Druid Dudeposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                     IF you have a physisist who believes in interdisciplinary references. The thing is, is that Physics is a full-time, lifelong endeavor, and so is biology, and both groups tend to run in different social circles. Result: Not a lot of cross-referrencing going on.

                     replyreport
            3. 59

               PseudoLogicposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               The scientific method:
               
               1) Careful observation of a phenomenon.
               2) Formulation of a hypothesis concerning the phenomenon.
               3) Experimentation to demonstrate whether the hypothesis is true or false.
               4) A conclusion that validates or modifies the hypothesis.
               
               Nobody has ever observed the creation of matter or energy.
               Nobody has ever observed a molecular cloud collapse or any planet form.
               Nobody has ever observed abiogenesis.
               Nobody has ever observed the evolution of any genome.
               Nobody has ever observed any phylum, class, order or family change.         
               
               Evolutionist scientists are great at Step 2 - Hypothesizing.
               
               The only problem comes on Steps 1, 3 and 4 - Observation, Experimentation and Validation. 
               
               So let's stop with the claim that science is on the side of naturalism.

               replyreport
   2. 73

      lone77starposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      @bdhall8377, why would a "transitional species ... deal a great blow to creationism?"
      
      We have a great deal of evidence of transitional species. The dinosaurs were transitional between trilobites and birds. Your statement lacks truly critical thinking, but also faith.
      
      How?
      
      It lacks critical thinking, because you should've seen the fact that there are transitional species. You may be thinking a finer gradation of transition, but you didn't state this. That's sloppy. I can recognize such sloppiness, because I too have been sloppy. But we both can become better.
      
      It lacks faith, because faith does not depend upon "interpretation" of the Bible or any other religious or spiritual work. And we all interpret it.
      
      I tell you plainly that too many interpret the Bible and miss great wisdoms for many are hidden in the Bible and are available only to those who are humble enough and industrious enough to find them.
      
      Why would wisdom be hidden in the Bible? Why would any divine messenger wish that we be humble and industrious?
      
      I have discovered a timeline in Genesis compatible with those of science and now it is science that must play catch-up, finding the evidence of human bones far older than the current maximum of 200,000 years. Only 30 years ago, one encyclopedic reference stated that our species is only 50,000 years old.
      
      But Genesis tells us that Noah's Flood occurred 27,970 BC, if my dates for Moses are correct. From science and this date, we learn who the "daughters of men" were. They and their offspring were the target of the Flood. Genesis also tells us the beginnings of humanity at a date that even I could not believe, at first.
      
      God the Father created the universe. He also created gravity, mu mesons, hyper baryons, strong and weak nuclear forces, electromagnetic fields, the pattern and laws of chemical reactions, the basis of physical life and, yes, evolution. Things evolve. Such is the glory of God to create such an intricate soup. But then he rested. We are living in His day of rest -- all 13.7 billion years of it.

      replyreport
   3. 61

      cascolyposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      innumerable scientists????   how about some facts to back up this claim???  and please shpow some examples of these people being 'very well respected'     -- maybe someone might be respected for her work in a non-biiological field, but i'm not aware of any scientists who deny evolution and who are respected by the scientific community
      
      your final statement about proof just shows you do not understand the concept of the scientific method, hypotheses and theories.   the preponderance of evidence shows evolution  is a fact.  there will never be one particular piece that 'proves' it.

      replyreport
      1. 61

         bdhall8377posted 12 years agoin reply to this

         http://christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-scientists.html

         replyreport
10. 61

    violetheavenposted 12 years ago

    I believe thqt God created the entire universe and is way more complex and intelligent than we could ever phatom.  I also believe in evolution.  They can co-exsist.

    replyreport
    1. 73

       lone77starposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       Amen to that!

       replyreport
11. 71

    AshtonFireflyposted 12 years ago

    My opinion on this topic is...God can do anything.
    
    If he chose to create and continue to create a world through evolution, then so be it.

    replyreport
12. 62

    knolyourselfposted 12 years ago

    Interesting concept, which not sure relevant here, but so many people tailor their pseudo logic to the individual they are talking to and not to the
    subject. Once had someone join a party I was, who refused to talk. I noticed I did not know how to talk to him because my talk could only be based on what I thought he was. Whereas a friend of mine talked to him like he was anybody or everybody.

    replyreport
13. 59

    Druid Dudeposted 12 years ago

    Why participate in a forum if you aren't going to participate in the forum? I really don't get that. Have a nice day.

    replyreport
14. 56

    shoel2012posted 12 years ago

    Buddhism in the Best Religion..agree or not

    replyreport
15. 59

    Druid Dudeposted 12 years ago

    Sir Isaac Newton also wrote a book of prophecy...

    replyreport
16. 61

    twosheds1posted 12 years ago

    Funny you should mention the Big Bang, because I had a spirited back-and-forth a couple months ago on a hub that said that the BB was poppycock. Of course, he offered nothing in the way of a counter-argument, except that he believed in the long-discredited steady state theory.

    replyreport