My point is I'm not a scientist, and I really don't feel like analyzing every bit of it, and debating everything over and over. My point about science being changed over time, is that I can't put may faith in science. And I know that people keep saying scientists believe in God plenty, but you'll never hear a scientist mix the two. They'd mock anyone who felt that something scientific pointed to God. In fact I know for a fact even well established people have lost their jobs for even suggesting anything of the sort. Evolutionary theory in it self is exclaiming that their was no creator, it's all random mutation and natural selection. I don't hear people saying they believe God guided it or started, or have anything to do with anything. So my point is I'd rather focus on my faith than science, I've found that more fruitful. 

I'll also say I'm not one of those people who oppose evolution in school, I'm not all for it either obviously, I just simply don't care.

I really appreciate your input into this. I'm glad you're participating in this and making this thread really interesting (a nice break). I hope you don't feel like people are attacking you because it sounds like you have thought about a lot of this and come to conclusions on your own; which is good. I encourage everyone to do that.

As a scientist, though, I would just like to say a few things. I believe wholeheartedly that Science (yes, Evolution is included in that) and Religion (and/or a belief God) can coexist without contradiction. I don't think I've heard any scientist opposed to the idea that God could have started everything, and the mechanisms in which things proceeded were in a way that many of the scientific theories describe (Universe formed via the Big Bang, and life forms evolved here on Earth). I only bring this up because you mentioned that you feel that Evolution is "exclaiming that their was no creator". This is simply not true, and mainly because the theory has nothing to do with God. It never, from its inception to Darwin, to its modification now with new techniques in genomics and molecular biology, has ever made mentioned of whether there is a God or not. And this makes perfect sense to me, because I feel it's perfectly logical to think that God set forth this Universe, and did so in such a complex way.

In addition, I feel it's also perfectly logical to think that there is life in other parts of the Universe; in fact, I feel its only logical to think so. Sure, this isn't something anyone can prove or disprove yet, but I don't feel the existence of life is in anyway a contradiction of the existence of God. I feel, if anything, that this shows how complex God is, and shows how amazing this gigantic Universe he created is. I mean, over 200 billion galaxies in the observable Universe...and each one contains around 200 billion stars...This to me, after all, would seem to be a pretty big waste of space if it was just the Earth that contained life. I would like to back up Kobex in that we really don't know what it takes to create life. We do know what it took on our own world to create life, but that isn't to say there are other scenarios in which life could exist. Life, as it's pretty obvious from the observation of our own world, has been shown to be extremely resilient, and I'm sure there is some flexibility for how things need to be "aligned" to form it. This is an important point because life could be something that requires less stringent guidelines to start, and so could be more prominent than we think. We really don't know, though, one way or another at this point. This is something that will probably take thousands of years to determine, it ever determined at all.

You say you can't put faith in Science. Well, science isn't about faith. It's about explaining the natural world around us the best we can with the current technology and data available to us. Science isn't really fact, per se; it's rather the best representation of our natural world at a time given the data we have. We modify our thinking based on these results that are obtained from scientific experiments. Yes scientific theories change, but you have to be careful which theories you use as examples here. Sure Hubble's Constant was shown to be wrong, but that was more of a hypothesis than a theory, with little evidence in the way of supporting or denying it initially. Many theories start off as logical patterns of thought, and have no data to support it. These hypotheses are then tested (if possible) and if shown to be correct, more confidence can be put in the theory. If not, the theory is modified by what the data showed in the test.

However, this is a FAR cry from the current status of the evolutionary theory. I certainly feel we've reached a point in the evolutionary theory where enough evidence has been surmounted that there will never be a giant leap in theory change. That is to say, we have acquired enough evidence that supports the theory, and so there is little chance some evidence will just pop up and surprise everyone causing a shift in thinking. These changes in thinking occur when theories are brand new; not when there is over 150 years of evidence supporting the theory. It's not really fair to compare the science of 1850 and show how science has changed since then as an argument about how science is flawed. The technology needed to test the majority of scientific theories just didn't exist then, and so it's easy to see with advent of this technology how science could change. You should really concentrate on the theories in their current status. It's good to read Darwin and Dawkins, but they're not representative of what the theories currently state as there were many discoveries that need to be made to get to where we are now (discovery of DNA/RNA, genome sequencing, etc).

You do bring up the point about "junk DNA" and you are correct in saying that at one point some people thought it was junk. However, I wouldn't say anyone in the genomics world spoke this way (these were interpretations from people outside of this field) because to genomic scientists it wasn't that the DNA was junk, it was that the function was unknown: it could have a function, or it may not. I only bring this up because this past summer I actually did research on introns (introns are what people sometimes incorrectly refer to as "junk DNA"), and discovered some patterns in the way they fold to be spliced out. So I guess your point about that hit home with me. It was incorrectly referred to as being "junk DNA" when it should have been thought as having an unknown function and I think the people calling it "junk" were not being good scientists (if these people were scientists); these people did not represent science very well by doing so as there was no evidence either way, and so as science goes, there can't truly be any conclusiosn made without evidence saying so one or the another (after all absence of evidence is not evidence of absence). And that right there is the basis of science; it follows the evidence put forth by the data. If the data shows a theory to be true, more confidence is put in it; if the data doesn't support the theory, it is reworked until the theory supports what the data is saying.

But like I said, I'm a firm believer in God. I believe he started everything, and I in now way feel there is any contradiction here. Sure God isn't brought into scientific discussions; but the reason this doesn't happen is because there's really no point. You can't prove or disprove God. And, so, for this very reason, that is not Science. God is not included in Science because there's no reason to include God in the discussion. Science sticks to things it can explain and things that can be tested; and (for now at least) God is not in this category.

Sure there are atheists in science, but there are atheists everywhere. There are also a lot of scientists that do believe in God and are very religious. Fact of the matter, it really doesn't matter, because science has nothing to do with whether God exists or not. And if you hear anyone say otherwise, they're flat out misrepresenting science. Sure there are scientists that may be against God, religion, or whatever; but that doesn't mean they are representative of the entire scientific community. You must keep in mind what they say in this regard is their opinion on the matter, and not a scientific proposition (and if they claim it to be a scientific proposition, they're not very good scientists because this usage violates the principles of science). Just like there are atheists and religious people in every non-scientific field, so too are there in every scientific field. However, you can't just point to a few atheists who happen to be scientists as fact as science discredits God as that is neither fair nor accurate in any way.

That all being said, I really appreciate your input on all of this. And I appreciate the input of everyone on this, as this thread certainly has turned out to be very interesting. I feel although there is a lot of misinformation and misrepresentation in our society about what Science is, what it's capable of, and in particular what the evolutionary theory states; it's good to see people discussing it here. And it seems most people have a pretty good grasp on things and most people are being pretty logical about things which is also great to see. I encourage people to look into current research if they ever want to learn more about the current status of the evolutionary theory (among other theories).

At any rate, this has been a good discussion. I don't think I will participate any further in it unless a new topic comes up or unless someone wants my input on something in particular. I feel we've reached a point in discussion where further discussion of these issues would just lead to a back and forth. Thanks again for reading, though, and it's good to see these issues being discussed logically (for the most part). Have a great day everyone.

I agree with Mr Hawkings "Science doesn't prove their isn't a god. Science just proves that if their is a god he doesn't work in an arbitrary way." as mentioned before.

People are too caught up in who's right and wrong. Does it really matter? God's says in just about every religious book that each person will be judged based on themselves, not others.

Therefore it doesn't matter if you can get 0,1, or 1million people to follow your path. You are only going to be judged on the merits of yourself.

So regardless of who is right the outcome will be the same. Just be happy in your own belief system and let others live as they wish.

Sometimes I think God created all for entertainment. It's no different than me creating a sim game. I would first create all the rules by which everything in the creation would behave, some things having more 'free will' than others. Then I get all of my materials and hit 'run'.

Then sit back and let it go until I was bored and hit 'alt+F4'.

Btw, i don't believe atheists are destined for Hell. If God is, God would judge you based on you, in context to your life. As someone who has read nearly every major religious book known to man, many of them more than once, there is a common theme that exists over and over. There is more than one path to god. All that is really needed is to be humane and be a genuinely good person.

Your experiences in life have dictated what you believe. These could stem, as seen in most cases, from your parents teachings, also known as blind faith. Or it could stem from research and personal theories, most logical way to handle anything. An atheist can easily be atheist based on perfectly logical theories, and I don't see God punishing a person, correct that, a genuinely good person simply because they could not find the evidence they needed to say 'I believe in God'. I don't think God wants Sheep. God allowed us to evolve large brains for a reason. Lets not disappoint God by being Sheep.

BTW- in case anyone is curious I consider myself Muslim and yes, these ideas are contained with in the Quran and Bible. Most just choose to read these books with an agenda.

How did this thread get this far without a link to the Flat Earth Society?

http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm

This one always gives me a good laugh....

"A second critical piece to the Efimovich model is that the Earth is not the center of the solar system either. It is, according to "round Earth" theory, orbiting the sun at a radius of around five-hundred million kilometers. Were this the case, the Earth would be an accelerated object in circular motion around its sun. And thereby are the problems introduced. The Earth accelerating in circular motion would behave no differently than would a car taking a corner: loose objects (humans and animals would act like loose change or a cup of coffee on the dashboard) would slide around, or be thrown off completely. There would be an apparent centrifugal force on everything. During the day, when things would be facing the sun and therefore on the inside of the "orbit", buildings would be crushed and humans beings squashed like grasshoppers in a centrifuge. And at night, when everything would be at the outside, trees and buildings would be ripped from the ground and flung into outer space, and humans wouldn't stand a chance. Obviously, there is a flaw in Efimovich's "orbit" theory."

lmao

ooh ooh even better....

"Once again, picture in your mind a round world. Now imagine that there are two people on this world, one at each pole. For the person at the top of the world, (the North Pole), gravity is pulling him down, towards the South Pole. But for the person at the South Pole, shouldn't gravity pull him down as well? What keeps our person at the South Pole from falling completely off the face of the "globe"?"

Another gem....

"Water. Regardless of which train of thought you follow, it covers over seventy-five percent of our planet's surface. And the atmosphere, also a fluid, covers the entire surface. The difference is why. While flat-Earthers know that the ocean is really just a large bowl, (with great sheets of ice around the edges to hold the ocean back), and the atmosphere is contained by a large dome, the backwards "round-Earth" way of thinking would have you believe that all those trillions of gallons of water and air just "stick" to the planet's surface."

 

Ok one more....

"With all this turbulence and motion, if the world were round, the oceans should all fall "down" into the sky, leaving the planet dry and barren, and the atmosphere would simply float away. Why, just look at the moon. It is round, like a ball, and yet it has no atmosphere at all."

As proven on the picture above. The world is on top of 4 very large elephants that is on top of an even bigger creature, turtle.

The said turtle swims for eons carrying out beloved world where time is long forgotten.