Collins: Why this scientist believes in God - Page 31

[Dave Sinkula]

I don't think any controversy is going to end. Especially this one...

Neither do I. So I'll just add fuel to the fire because it amuses me.
Why Atheism Fails: The Four Big Bangs

[Duki]

Neither do I. So I'll just add fuel to the fire because it amuses me.
Why Atheism Fails: The Four Big Bangs

great article... thanks.

[WaltP]

I think jesus having a wife would have been cool. The child could have been half man half holy, a new prophet

A prophetlet... the religious version of Hercules.

I've thought about it and the Da Vinci code is really just an interpretation of an interpretation of what may have happened at one time.

It's a NOVEL. Note the word fictitious in the definition :icon_rolleyes:

Neither do I. So I'll just add fuel to the fire because it amuses me.
Why Atheism Fails: The Four Big Bangs

Interesting. Even though it really doesn't say anything. I'm sure there are other possibilities than the "just popped" theories. And at this date, I was under the impression science doesn't have all the answers yet, therefore we don't know what happened way back then -- yet. Or is there nothing more to discover, so we must accept either POP or GOD, and nothing else? So science is now done discovering things. Kool. :icon_confused:

[Dave Sinkula]

Interesting. Even though it really doesn't say anything.

Actually if you've gone down this path before it summarizes things rather succinctly.

>I'm sure there are other possibilities than the "just popped" theories.

Distillation. Much like the atheist simplification, but in reverse.

>And at this date, I was under the impression science doesn't have all the answers yet, therefore we don't know what happened way back then -- yet.

Of course we don't know what happened way back then -- yet.

>Or is there nothing more to discover, so we must accept either POP or GOD, and nothing else?

There's plenty more to discover. And this question will remain unanswered. So it will eventually distill to the same.

>So science is now done discovering things. Kool. :icon_confused:

Of course! Just like there's nothing left to patent. ;)

[WaltP]

Of course! Just like there's nothing left to patent. ;)

I was thinking of that as I was replying! :)

[sk8ndestroy14]

I think earlier WaltP said that he believed in christianity and evolution. I don't feel like going through the pages to find it. But I just want to know your explanation of why, in Genesis, it says that man came on the sixth day but evolution would have taken many million years. I'm not making an attack. I'm just interested to see what you have to say about it.

[christina>you]

I think earlier WaltP said that he believed in christianity and evolution. I don't feel like going through the pages to find it. But I just want to know your explanation of why, in Genesis, it says that man came on the sixth day but evolution would have taken many million years. I'm not making an attack. I'm just interested to see what you have to say about it.

I kind of have the same idea. Although I don't completely believe in evolution, I can consider it along with creationism. I mean it's not against Christianity to believe that we have evolved along the way since Adam and Eve. As long as we believe that it was God's doing.

[Dave Sinkula]

But I just want to know your explanation of why, in Genesis, it says that man came on the sixth day but evolution would have taken many million years.

I have a hard time understanding how that isn't easy to imagine. :shrug:

Since I'm occasionally following this thread, I'll just propose something wacky.

Let's say I am an omnipotent power with the ability to create matter, time, space, and all the rules that govern it. (Unlike the cloning issue mentioned early, meant as really create -- calling cloning "creation" is like making a copy of the Mona Lisa and then claiming to be a great artist.)

Let's also say I'm performing a little experiment like a parent does with a child: make candy (or whatever) available, but with instructions "Don't eat any candy before supper!" Leave the room and observe unseen. [Not to punish or reward, just to observe reactions.] "A 'very'-blind test."

Given the experiment's nature, I might create a universe "joined already in progress" -- after all, if I can create time, I can surely pick a point in which to start for the "kids". If I wanted to truly perform an impartial test, I might also include evidence of a prehistory -- something which would "prove" my own non-existence.

Anyways, you can add twists and turns to the plot at your whim. The point is supposed to be, "it doesn't matter."

My usual haunt used to be the C forum. In that lingo it would be "trying to define undefined behavior". The correct answer is that "it is undefined." Anything else that happens to occur is well within bounds -- it could be exactly as you expect, it could be very strange results. Both are correct; nothing is correct.

[blather, blather, blather...]

[WaltP]

I think earlier WaltP said that he believed in christianity and evolution. I don't feel like going through the pages to find it.

Lazy... :icon_wink:
I understand Christianity, but I don't believe in a lot of it. As a manual for ideas on how to live, treat others, dealing with success, it's great. Learning something about historical events, it may be good, but there's still too much unknown to blindly say all events actually happened.

But I just want to know your explanation of why, in Genesis, it says that man came on the sixth day but evolution would have taken many million years. I'm not making an attack. I'm just interested to see what you have to say about it.

Humans have a need to know. What they can't actually know, they create theories and/or stories to explain the unknowable.

Genesis says man came on the sixth day because that's what Moses wrote. The story is a metaphor to placate people's curiosity, written in terms that the people of the time could understand. It's not meant to be taken literally.

[sk8ndestroy14]

I also thought of an idea that I didn't mention earlier. Someone that truly believes the bible word for word would say that God is so powerful he spread the waters of the Red Sea, sent the plagues (however it's spelled), gave a son to the world that could turn water to wine, etc. If you believe all that is true then obviously God can bend and break the rules of science, being the creator of those rules. How else could He do those things? Knowing that, He could have put fossils in the ground, changed the structure of the layers of the Earth, created organisms alike and made it appear as though evolution were possible. That would seperate the true believers from the nonbelievers. It's a stretch but it's possible.

[christina>you]

I also thought of an idea that I didn't mention earlier. Someone that truly believes the bible word for word would say that God is so powerful he spread the waters of the Red Sea, sent the plagues (however it's spelled), gave a son to the world that could turn water to wine, etc. If you believe all that is true then obviously God can bend and break the rules of science, being the creator of those rules. How else could He do those things? Knowing that, He could have put fossils in the ground, changed the structure of the layers of the Earth, created organisms alike and made it appear as though evolution were possible. That would seperate the true believers from the nonbelievers. It's a stretch but it's possible.

Sure, it's definitely possible.
I don't have a doubt that God wouldn't have the ability to do something like that.
The only thing is, Christians believe in what the Bible says. That is what we follow as our guide. And that being said, if the Bible discussed God putting fossils in the ground and whatnot, we would surely believe this. But the thing is, we don't know. We only follow what Genesis has written in it. So therefore, Christians usually do not agree with evolution.

[jbennet]

tsunami?

[Serunson]

science ~ i mean physics ~ can 'just' explain the beginning of time itself (universe creation)
could this then prove the non existence of god?

[christina>you]

I don't think anything can disprove/approve the non existence of God. (That's the non-biased opinion.)

But as for my personal opinion, I think it is almost impossible to believe that there is not a deity that controls the universe and world we live in. It just seems too absurd for me.

[Narue]

>could this then prove the non existence of god?
It's logically impossible to prove that something doesn't exist for any reasonably complex system, and the universe is somewhat complex.

[jbennet]

the deity is science itself and the nature of the human mind

[christina>you]

IMHO, I don't think science has the answer to everything. It lacks in different categories.

And for me, I'd rather believe in God and let him take care of the science. :)

[sk8ndestroy14]

Sure, it's definitely possible.
I don't have a doubt that God wouldn't have the ability to do something like that.
The only thing is, Christians believe in what the Bible says. That is what we follow as our guide. And that being said, if the Bible discussed God putting fossils in the ground and whatnot, we would surely believe this. But the thing is, we don't know. We only follow what Genesis has written in it. So therefore, Christians usually do not agree with evolution.

yeah But at the same time dinosaurs were never mentioned in the bible but there is no controversy of their existence. Their fossils were found in the ground.

[christina>you]

yeah But at the same time dinosaurs were never mentioned in the bible but there is no controversy of their existence. Their fossils were found in the ground.

Again, the Bible does mention dinosaurs.
It just doesn't have the word 'dinosaur' in it, simply because there wasn't a word for it in Hebrew back then. Scientists believe that they might have called it a dragon instead of a dinosaur.

[sk8ndestroy14]

science ~ i mean physics ~ can 'just' explain the beginning of time itself (universe creation)
could this then prove the non existence of god?

I always thought science couldn't explain the exact beginning of the universe. They could only explain what happened fractions of a second after the "big bang" but could never explain when t=0 so the actual beginning of time hasn't been explained by science yet. Unless I misunderstood when it was taught to me. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong but that's the way I thought it was.

[christina>you]

At around the 1840's, a famous British scientist (and creationist), Dr Richard Owen, coined the name ‘Dinosauria,’ meaning ‘terrible lizard,’ for this is what the huge bones made him think of. A lot of Scientists believe that dinosaurs were called dragons before the word dinosaur was invented in the 1800s. And there was no word for "dinosaur" in the Hebrew language... the Bible does talk about "dragons" though. There was evidence that dinosaurs did exist during the time of Job (after the flood). In Job 40:15-24, it describes an animal, called "behemoth," possibly the biggest land animal God had ever created. Impressively, in Job, it describes that this animal moved his tail like a cedar tree! Although some Bible commentaries say that this may have been an elephant or hippopotamus, the description actually fits that of the Brachiosaurus. Elephants and hippos certainly do not have tails like cedar trees. Actually, very few animals are singled out in the Bible for such a detailed description.

Also, surprisingly, many of these descriptions of dragons fit with how modern scientists would describe dinosaurs, even Tyrannosaurus. Unfortunately, this evidence is not considered valid by evolutionists. Why? Only because their belief is that man and dinosaurs did not live at the same time!

^ this is what I posted a while back.

[sk8ndestroy14]

Again, the Bible does mention dinosaurs.
It just doesn't have the word 'dinosaur' in it, simply because there wasn't a word for it in Hebrew back then. Scientists believe that they might have called it a dragon instead of a dinosaur.

When did it refer to dinosaurs. I remember a reference to what was believed to be some type of ocean dragon (as a metaphor or something I don't remember) I used to know the name of it, but I don't remember a reference to dinosaurs.

[christina>you]

At around the 1840's, a famous British scientist (and creationist), Dr Richard Owen, coined the name ‘Dinosauria,’ meaning ‘terrible lizard,’ for this is what the huge bones made him think of. A lot of Scientists believe that dinosaurs were called dragons before the word dinosaur was invented in the 1800s. And there was no word for "dinosaur" in the Hebrew language... the Bible does talk about "dragons" though. There was evidence that dinosaurs did exist during the time of Job (after the flood). In Job 40:15-24, it describes an animal, called "behemoth," possibly the biggest land animal God had ever created. Impressively, in Job, it describes that this animal moved his tail like a cedar tree! Although some Bible commentaries say that this may have been an elephant or hippopotamus, the description actually fits that of the Brachiosaurus. Elephants and hippos certainly do not have tails like cedar trees. Actually, very few animals are singled out in the Bible for such a detailed description.

Also, surprisingly, many of these descriptions of dragons fit with how modern scientists would describe dinosaurs, even Tyrannosaurus. Unfortunately, this evidence is not considered valid by evolutionists. Why? Only because their belief is that man and dinosaurs did not live at the same time!

^ this is what I posted a while back.

[sk8ndestroy14]

Oh, I didn't know all of that, but do you think that they lived at the same time? That seems kind of hard to believe.

[christina>you]

Oh, I didn't know all of that, but do you think that they lived at the same time? That seems kind of hard to believe.

Yeah, that's what a lot of people said to me.
Honestly, I don't know.
I think it is possible that there might have been a couple of dinosaurs left during that time. But who really knows? Almost anything is possible.

[Serunson]

going back to ur point sk8:

I always thought science couldn't explain the exact beginning of the universe. They could only explain what happened fractions of a second after the "big bang" but could never explain when t=0 so the actual beginning of time hasn't been explained by science yet. Unless I misunderstood when it was taught to me. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong but that's the way I thought it was.

according to the BBC Horizon program ~ the tunnel partical accelerator in the Alps in Europe would be able to recreate a miniature big bang that lasts for a few nano seconds then disappears.
Thus being at time 0 ~ but the bigger question what created the energy that started off the big bang? the debate goes on.......

[hollystyles]

Humans have a need to know. What they can't actually know, they create theories and/or stories to explain the unknowable.

Hmm I think the universe itself want's to know, we are merely it's appendages we are the universe discovering itself. The universe is bilions of years old, but that is perhaps still an infant for universes assuming there are others.

Chikens and Eggs

Question: how does something come from nothing?

Another question: if God created the universe, who or what created God?

So science and religion both have the same fundamental problem. The thing is for something to start you have to have a concept first, the arrow of time. A glass can be knocked from a table and smash to pieces, but it will never re-assemble itself and float back up onto the table, not repeatably in a laboratory for all to see anyway. So you have a rule, an order, certain things can only happen in sequence, cause and effect. So we are caught in our own ceratainty there has to be a beginning. But all these laws of physics were born with the universe before that they have no meaning whats to say on the other side of t=0 the opposite of something (nothing) is a perfectly valid state to be in and to be there forever because there is no forever it just... well is.

Science can't explain everything, and I seriously doubt it ever will, neither will religion. Science is fast to adapt however and offers us practical knowledge, where as religion is steeped in tradition and slow to change but offers us discipline. One has to keep ones sense of wonder to chose one over the other is to close a door. Both require faith. There cannot be good without evil, without evil to compare to what does 'good' mean? and there cannot be science without religion or vice versa.

The whole thing is just ****ing amazing and for one, I'm happy with that.

Oh yeah, and I love you all X

[WaltP]

I also thought of an idea that I didn't mention earlier. Someone that truly believes the bible word for word would say that God is so powerful he spread the waters of the Red Sea, sent the plagues (however it's spelled), gave a son to the world that could turn water to wine, etc. If you believe all that is true then obviously God can bend and break the rules of science, being the creator of those rules. How else could He do those things? Knowing that, He could have put fossils in the ground, changed the structure of the layers of the Earth, created organisms alike and made it appear as though evolution were possible. That would seperate the true believers from the nonbelievers. It's a stretch but it's possible.

Yeah, it's a real stretch, and only true if you subscribe to the concept of a deceptive God -- a lying God, as I already mentioned here

I thought you believed in an honest God, not a deceptive God!

The more accurate question here would be "why would he falsify the records like that?"

IMHO, I don't think science has the answer to everything. It lacks in different categories.

Duh! That's why there are still scientists. So they can fine tune what we know, and eventually answer those questions we don't have answers for yet :icon_wink:

And for me, I'd rather believe in God and let him take care of the science. :)

Luckily, there are those that would rather understand the makeup of the universe, so they search for answers that are not in the Good Book.

Again, the Bible does mention dinosaurs.
It just doesn't have the word 'dinosaur' in it, simply because there wasn't a word for it in Hebrew back then. Scientists believe that they might have called it a dragon instead of a dinosaur.

And I responded to this with:

If they existed, there would be a Hebrew word for dinosaurs. There's no word because they were unknown to the people that wrote the texts. IMO it's a nonsensical argument that the language does not have a word for something even though the people lived lived with them.

IOW, you don't have an animal larger than your house that lives at the same time as you and not give the darn thing a name! Especually when there are so many different types of them. That's the epitome of silly.

[Dave Sinkula]

only true if you subscribe to the concept of a deceptive God

Where is the deception?

Good posts BTW.

[WaltP]

Where is the deception?

Even though the world is only 6000 years old (or whatever the current Creationist theory is), the scientific record has been modified by God's hand to show 4 billion years. And even though dinosaurs existed concurrently with man, the scientific record has been divinely altered to show dinos died out 60 some millions of years before man arrived on the scene.

Looks like deception to me.