By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
yo_john117 on 08 May 2012
Edit Thread
TheProphet said:
highwaystar101 said:

Are you saying that the Hovind "theory" doesn't make any sense and that it is full of holes!?! How dare you! Dr Hovind's "theory" is watertight (unlike the crust of the Earth, which shot out subterranian water to the moon under the pressure of the Earth's crust, apparently).

The thing is, if religious people want religion to compete with accepted scientific theories (like many of them do), then they need to understand the structure of science. They can't just say any old stuff and expect to get away with it.

Thank you for the welcome. I don't mind reading other points of view. I am constantly examining my own beliefs and compare them to others to improve them. 

I agree that science uses only the best theory. A theory may be proven wrong in the future. I am only saying the the current science supports the Biblical understanding of God. The universe had a beginning just like Genesis says. Current science agrees with the Bible.

To begin with, Darwin talked about evolution after the first life froms. Evolution can be consistent with divine creation. Abiogenesis has no scientifically verifiable explanation for the origin of life. Some scientists in this field believe they will never know how life started. I agree with them. Life is too complex to randomly come together.

I am not saying that science proves God exists. I am saying that current science supports that theological conclusion. God is, as I said, outside the universe. Science requires material to test. Science can not therefore prove God's existence. However, one can now reasonably say, given the overwhelming design in the universe, its origin, and the complexity of life, that a designer is the best philosophical explanation. The alternative is that everything came from nothing. That I think is a very poor explanation.

If the universe existed forever then I would have a very difficult time arguing that there was a God creator. Some scientists tried to advance this theory, but it does not fit the scientific facts of the big bang. 

I agree with this 100%

I think this quote from George Wald (Nobel prize winner in 1967) speaks quite clearly about why people don't believe in God.

"When it comes to the origin of life, we have only two possibilities as to how life arose. One is spontaneous generation arising to evolution; the other is a supernatural creative act of God. There is no third possibility...Spontaneous generation was scientifically disproved one hundred years ago by Louis Pasteur, Spellanzani, Reddy and others. That leads us scientifically to only one possible conclusion -- that life arose as a supernatural creative act of God...I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God. Therefore, I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible, spontaneous generation arising to evolution." - Scientific American, August, 1954.

http://www.conservapedia.com/George_Wald

 

Nobody is going to be able to change the others mind through debating or arguing. When this thread is over Athiests will think they have won the arguments likewise Christians will also think that they have won the arguments. Neither side can prove with any amount of certainty that the other side is wrong. In the end its simply a faith step. Do you choose to have faith and believe in God or do you choose to have faith to not believe in God. For me personally, it would take more faith to not believe in God then it would take to believe in God. (I'm sure most Athiests feel the same way but with things switched around)