Can Creationism and Science Co-Exist?
- Posted on June 20, 2011 at 6:45pm by
Billy Hallowell
- Print »
- Email »
Can creationism and science co-exist? This ongoing question has dominated cultural and religious circles for centuries. Across the globe, individuals and institutions continue to debate about the origins of life. While some embrace the scientific theory of evolution, others believe in creationism — the notion that a higher power purposefully formulated mankind.
This, of course, is an oversimplification, as there are individuals who embrace a variety of theories that pull from these polar opposites. The main argument at the heart of it all, though, is whether the Bible’s scriptures fall in line with scientific theory (and vice-versa).
John Lennox, a math professor and author from Oxford University is sharing his belief that creationism and science can peacefully co-exist. In his new book entitled, “Seven Days That Divide the World” Lennox maintains that Christians can believe in science’s theoretical constructs, while embracing Biblical scriptures as truths. In an interview with The Christian Post, he says:
“I think that sometimes people have been taught there are only two possibilities: Possibility one is that if you are being faithful to Scripture, you have to be a young earth creationist. Otherwise you’re an evolutionist or a theistic evolutionist, and you’re not faithful to Scripture. I don’t think that is the case…”
…it’s not a quest of trying to keep up [with science], but it’s a quest of looking at what God has revealed of Himself in nature, and looking at what God has revealed of Himself in the Bible and trying to make sense of those two.”
According to the Post, Lennox challenges Christians to look into the Bible to find areas where God‘s account of creation and science’s explanations intersect. He believes wholeheartedly that adherents shouldn’t be afraid to look for corroboratory evidence. Furthermore, he says that the Bible purposefully oversimplifies various teachings, including the creation story, to make them more universally understandable:
In his book, Lennox first suggests that Genesis teaches readers the possibility that the seven days are suggestive of a more complex process…
He continues, “If the biblical explanations were at the level, say, of twenty-second century science, it would likely be unintelligible to everyone, including scientists today. This could scarcely have been God’s intention. He wished His meaning to be accessible to all.”
Interestingly, Lennox believes that that Bible is ahead of its time in a scientific sense, highlighting its insinuation that the universe had a beginning far before science had contended the same.
Click here to read more about these fascinbating ideas.
(h/t The Christian Post)
Popular Stories
Does Misstated Marathon Claim Prove Paul Ryan Is Dishonest? (POLL) 667 Comments
‘Jumah at the DNC’ Speaker: ‘Muslims Visited America Prior to Columbus’ & ‘It Was a Muslim’ Who Guided Him to the ‘New World’ 525 Comments
Paper Details Obama Admin’s Alleged Secret Note Sent to Iran: If Israel Attacks, We Won’t Get Involved 377 Comments
Obama: RNC Like Watching ‘Black-and-White TV’ Because Romney ‘Did Not Offer a Single New Idea’ 364 Comments
Roseanne Barr: Most Billionaires ‘Violent Pedophiles’ & ‘Heartless’ Cocaine Addicts 326 Comments
Faith
This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 248 Comments- Pakistani Muslim Cleric Accused of Framing Disabled Christian Girl in Koran-Burning Case Read More
- ‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 257 Comments
Meet the Controversial German Imam Accused of Brutally Beating His Wife & Pushing Sharia Law Read More
‘Self-Proclaimed Messiah’ & Unification Church Leader the Rev. Sun Myung Moon Has Died — Here’s His Life Story Read More
Business
President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order Read More- Germany’s Upcoming Court Ruling Will be Huge for the EU Read More
Ford Looks to Beat Toyota for Best-Selling Car in 2012 With This Model 147 Comments
Bernanke & QE3: Here’s What You Need to Know Read More- ‘Extortion’: Why Did the Labor Department ‘Drop the Hammer’ on Oregon Farmers? 300 Comments
Technology
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 248 Comments
‘TaserDrone’: Hackers Weaponize Quadcopter With Actual ‘Shocking’ Technology Read More
Ever Heard of the Wild ‘Burning Man’ Festival in the Middle of the Nev. Desert? Here’s Your Primer Read More
Stanford Develops Technology ‘Better Than Steroids’ for Athlete Recovery Read More
Have You Pretended to Know What ‘the Cloud’ Is? You’re Not Alone Read More
Submitting your tip... please wait!
Comments (465)
Blessed 2 B American
Posted on June 20, 2011 at 7:54pmLet’s look at creationisn… look at evolution…
Creationism says all was created by GOD or a superior being depending on your personal persuasion!
Evolution says all existence evloved from some living SOMETHING!
My question is; Do not both of these go back to WHO created life in what ever status it started from?
Today scientist have broken down seeds to where they know their exact compisition. However, they cannoy get them to germinate!
To me thuis settles the issue; A Superior being ( I call hiom GOD) created life as we know it.
The BIG BANG Theory does not get it! If so, who made all of the objects that made the big bang happen?
You leftist need another ball to chase.
Report Post »Liberal_Atheist_Critical_Thinker
Posted on June 20, 2011 at 7:59pmWho made god?
If nothing made god, then how did it come to exist?
Report Post »candcantiques
Posted on June 20, 2011 at 8:27pmto LACT
Report Post »If nothing made grass then how did it come to exist? What made dirt? What made complex organisms? They just appeared one day??? Just a chance happening that we have the abilities that no other living thing on the planet has? I dont think so.
JGraham III
Posted on June 20, 2011 at 8:57pmWhy don’t you ask Him?
Report Post »HankScram
Posted on June 20, 2011 at 9:05pmBlessed 2 B American,
You’re actually making an argument advanced mostly by liberals. You’ll find most conservatives reject your argument because it is not literal enough for their entrenched religions. This is where liberals have one over on us – they are open to arguments similar to the one you made.
Report Post »BOMUSTGO
Posted on June 20, 2011 at 9:32pmWe think in the context of time. YHWH, which means, Eternal Self Existing One, created time. He is not bound by time.He sees the end from the begining.To have a creation, you have to have a creator.The study of science, is to study the laws that the Almighty put into motion.
Report Post »Bhaub
Posted on June 20, 2011 at 11:20pmActually, god was a man who ascended to godhood. He has multiple wives and children and lives on planet Kolob. If you were Mormons, you‘d understand that and wouldn’t burn in hell.
Report Post »joel228
Posted on June 21, 2011 at 12:53amBhaub, why do I feel that any response to you is a response to an imbecile?
Report Post »joe1234
Posted on June 21, 2011 at 9:25amJoel: you are right
Report Post »MBN
Posted on June 21, 2011 at 12:02pm@ LACT
“And who made God?” That is an excellent question. I have pondered on this myself many times. However, I do not know and nor does anybody else know the answer.
Where did the matter that makes up the universe come from? What was there before the big bang? Other good questions are they not? And are they not asking about the same thing?
Question: Where did everything comes from? … Answer: Nobody knows
Report Post »DLMaston
Posted on June 21, 2011 at 3:58pmWell said!!
Report Post »Bhaub
Posted on June 21, 2011 at 6:44pmWhy are you calling me an imbecile? I’m telling you the true word of God according to Mormon religion. If you‘re saying it’s idiotic, you may wish to question Glenn Beck’s faith in it.
And your faith in Beck, consequently.
Report Post »WithAK
Posted on January 20, 2012 at 1:39amCan someone please summarize (or not) the ‘facts’ of creationism to be taught in a science class?
Report Post »How can I discuss it if I don’t know what it is?
Liberal_Atheist_Critical_Thinker
Posted on June 20, 2011 at 7:48pmcandcantiques said -
“GOD created everything in 6 days. Rested on the seventh day. How long was GOD’s day? I am betting it was longer than 24 hours.”
What is a day? It is the time period for a complete rotation of a planet. Why would a deity have anything like a “day”. Does it live on a planet? The idea is ridiculous!
You people continue to amaze me with your illogical fanciful ideas!
Report Post »candcantiques
Posted on June 20, 2011 at 8:01pmWait just a minute. You included what I stated and agreed with it as a way of telling me that I have illogical fancifull ideas??? How exactly does that work. You agree with what I said but “I” am illogical. I think you have proven that YOU are illogical.
Report Post »Liberal_Atheist_Critical_Thinker
Posted on June 20, 2011 at 8:04pmWhat on Earth are you talking about?
Report Post »candcantiques
Posted on June 20, 2011 at 8:19pmWOW. You really dont see what you did or your trying to play dumb. Admit your mistake and move on. Thats the mark of an adult that deserves respect. Being able to admit your mistakes.
Report Post »jb.kibs
Posted on June 20, 2011 at 10:33pmhe’s talking about, 7 days.. to a God, who knows no time, could be 1000′s of years to us… or 10 seconds.. time is a man made idea. a God could do anything. It COULD have taken it no time to do it all, they could just will it, and it is… noone knows what a God can do but a God.
Plus… everyone quotes genesis, which is not an ‘account’ for anything, but a simple explaination for how God could have created everything.. you have to remember when THAT story was actually written.. it was written WAY before the bible.. it was even in The Message. It has been changed, as most stories do… but… it is just a story to give a start to the telling of the accounts of people who had a higher calling in life. i don’t think it was actually 7 of our days.. i don’t really know if anyone believes that.. it’s ok if they do, i don’t care either way.. because there ARE a lot of facts in the bible, it IS a history book. you can’t deny journals of people, scrolls, hymms people sang and wrote down… i mean.. really.. you think it’s all bs just because one of one story?… it’s all good dude.. it doesn’t really matter. lol but you did prove his point… “what is a day?” – that says it all.
Report Post »Bhaub
Posted on June 20, 2011 at 11:12pmLACT, Glenn Beck believes that God lives on planet Kolob, which has different “days” than we have. Apparently Kolob has God-days which are thousands of our days long! AMAZING. It‘s almost like it’s a total lie.
But hey, that’s the truth. Beck will go to Heaven for believing it while all others burn in hell. That’s the Mormon way. :)
Report Post »joel228
Posted on June 20, 2011 at 11:38pmGive it up Bhaub. Do you even believe that God lives?
Report Post »Bhaub
Posted on June 20, 2011 at 11:41pmJoel, are you denying that GOD lives on planet Kolob? If so, you may wish to ask Glenn Beck in an email, or do a few minutes of research on it. It IS a Mormon belief. Beck MUST believe it to go to Heaven according to his religion.
Report Post »joel228
Posted on June 21, 2011 at 12:38amPearls before swine but here goes.
Moses wrote most of the first five books in the Old Testament. He wrote of events that occured thousands of years before his time including the creation of the world and the history of Abraham and his descendants.
Abraham was a great prophet and through instruction from God contributed to the ancients understanding and knowledge of the creations of God. He wrote those down.
Joseph Smith was a prophet no less in stature than Moses and received writings and direct knowledge through revelations. Just like Moses he received the writings of Abraham which included the following:
“But the records of the fathers, even the patriarchs, concerning the right of Priesthood, the Lord my God preserved in mine own hands; therefore a knowledge of the beginning of the creation, and also of the planets, and of the stars, as they were made known unto the fathers, have I kept even unto this day, and I shall endeavor to write some of these things upon this record, for the benefit of my posterity that shall come after me.”
Included in that record was the name of the star near where God resides and was mentioned in reference to God’s time reckoning which was said to be one thousand of our years to one day of his time (just like the New Testament says). He called that governing star Kolob. This is in a book we appropriately call “The Pearl of Great Price”. So with you I say pearls before swine.
Report Post »MBN
Posted on June 21, 2011 at 12:20pmTime and motion are inseparably connected. Without motion, there is no such time as time. If there is a God who set things in motion then time would not be an unfamiliar concept to Him.
LACT, stop and think. You are being ridiculous. If God wanted to communicate with us, and if he were all-wise, all-knowing and all-powerful would He communicate to us on His level or on our level? How would God best communicate and answer the question “Where did everything come from?” Would He reveal all of the details? Would He use analogy and symbolism?
Big Bag and Evolution are not empirically testable theories and require one’s faith in order to be believed in.
Report Post »Bhaub
Posted on June 21, 2011 at 6:42pmYou heard Joel, everyone. It’s perfectly rational that God lives on Kolob. Deny it and burn in hell.
Report Post »joel228
Posted on June 21, 2011 at 6:59pmPearls before Bhaub. By the way your idea who burns in hell is not accurate. I think they could find a great little mud pit that you might actually enjoy rolling around in.
Report Post »maizie45
Posted on June 20, 2011 at 7:45pmSince I wasn’t around 4000 years ago or 25 billion years ago, I don‘t have any way to prove either theory and can’t see any reason to argue the topic.
Report Post »Liberal_Atheist_Critical_Thinker
Posted on June 20, 2011 at 7:45pmNo, they can’t “co-exist”, because they are apples and oranges.
One is based on a logical system, and the other on irrational, delusional faith. It’s just like asking if religion and science can co-exist. What a dumb assertion.
Report Post »commonsenseguy
Posted on June 20, 2011 at 7:52pmo that’s right, you believe that the universe and the earth,and every thing on it were created from a dust fart from a comet.
Report Post »Liberal_Atheist_Critical_Thinker
Posted on June 20, 2011 at 7:54pmNo I do not believe that.
Report Post »EnoughBS
Posted on June 20, 2011 at 9:04pmWow, took you long enough LACT!! but alas, you’re here :)
Report Post »Meyvn
Posted on June 20, 2011 at 9:59pmHow absurd. Apples and Oranges co-exist. I thought you were a critical thinker. and what part of eternal do you not understand? God is eternal… far outside of space and time.
http://www.khouse.org/6640_cat/technical/
Report Post »beckwasfox
Posted on June 21, 2011 at 1:05pmI love Chuck Missler! Evolution requires more faith that belief in God.
Report Post »Xcori8r
Posted on June 20, 2011 at 7:40pmSpeaking on behalf of all dyslexic atheists, I can confidently state that there is no Dog.
Report Post »Gump
Posted on June 20, 2011 at 7:36pmThe correct question is can evolution co-exist with science. Those who have studied creationism have no problem with real science, just science made up to “PROVE” evolution.
Report Post »candcantiques
Posted on June 20, 2011 at 7:35pmGOD created everything in 6 days. Rested on the seventh day. How long was GOD’s day? I am betting it was longer than 24 hours. Our lives are but a blink of an eye compared to the age of the universe. If GOD created everything in the universe why should we believe that he has done so on OUR time table. I am sure that in a butterflys world he lives for a long time. However to us he only lives for a few days. Does that mean we are thousands of butterfly years old? Should WE live by a butterfly’s timetable? To us GOD is millions of years old. Maybe, and I am just spitballing here, maybe in GOD’s mind he is only 50. So can evolution and GOD go hand in hand. I believe so. Yes.
Report Post »beckwasfox
Posted on June 21, 2011 at 12:54pmHe exists outside of time. He is eternal. I am but a vapor!
Report Post »Gatekeeper
Posted on June 20, 2011 at 7:33pmGod created science. People forget how much the church has contributed to science, and is really the patron of science. Evolution could be a possibility. Who knows how God created us.
Report Post »BubbaCoop
Posted on June 20, 2011 at 7:29pmScience actually supports creation. Evolutionists have to use Biblical assumptions in their work even though they come to false conclusions. Check out Jason Lisle‘s Ultimate Proof of Creation or Henry Morris’s Biblical Basis for Modern Science
Report Post »HankScram
Posted on June 20, 2011 at 8:44pmDid God create man in his current form? Science tells us no. Why would God lie in terms of the evidence he left behind. Did God create life? That’s faith.
There is this strange argument made by many right wing Christians – that science is all just theories – that these theories change over time – and we science doesn’t really know anything for sure. Yet, we all drive cars, use cell phones, post on the internet, live longer with medicine . . . . you rely on scientific theory / knowledge every moment of your life – then try to discount it? If its all a theory, then remove all of the benefits of science from your life. Otherwise, you’re just saying its a theory because you know it makes your religion look silly.
Report Post »beckwasfox
Posted on June 21, 2011 at 12:51pmWe create things like cars, cell phones, etc. because we are made in the image of our creator. There is a difference between ‘science’ and theory. I don’t think anyone here is refuting observable scientific data. There are some that are refuting that the theory of evolution is science. The theory of evolution does require a faith of sorts. God will show you the truth if you ask him.
Report Post »Kippop222
Posted on June 20, 2011 at 7:26pmIt should be pointed out that scientific “facts” are, in fact, transient and subject to new interpretations from a new generation. Think of how many scientific “facts” have been upended by new techniques and understandings. This will not be any different with this debate. The current body of knowledge from multilple scientific disciplines does not point towards inextricably to billions of years nor, and especially, Darwinian evolution.
Report Post »However smart we like to think ourselves now, our factual knowledge will be dwarfed by future generations…without our own nature being compromised. However ill-eqipped we suppose the ancients to have been their reliance on their relationship to God certainly kept them closer to Him.
We will know soon enough.
God bless all of you.
edcoil
Posted on June 20, 2011 at 7:21pmThe fact that the creator gave his creations the ability to adapt to the environments they find themselves in should come as no surprise.
Report Post »miles from nowhere
Posted on June 20, 2011 at 7:20pmNo they can not co-exist because science can become fact and creationism is only in theory.
Report Post »BubbaCoop
Posted on June 20, 2011 at 7:31pmIt’s a question of what your ultimate authority is. Reliable eyewitness testimony can be more accurate than science, so I’ll take the Word of the only one who was present over the fallible theories based on faulty assumptions about radiometric dating.
Report Post »Locked
Posted on June 20, 2011 at 7:35pmYou do realize that eyewitness testimony is incredibly unreliable even immediately following an incident, though? Not to mention how much things can change over the course of thousands of years; and that’s after at least 60 years without the account being written down (generous assumption of the first printed version of the gospel). And that’s just assuming you mean the Resurrection; talking about the Creation, that predates written history (technically it predates anything; how do we know what was before “the beginning”?)
Report Post »Lesbian Packing Hollow Points
Posted on June 20, 2011 at 7:19pmNo. They can’t.
Keep your religion out of public school science classrooms and I’ll keep science out of your church services.
Report Post »The10thAmendment
Posted on June 20, 2011 at 7:34pmI take it that you are completely and emphatically ignorant of the difference between Science, and the Theory of Purple Dinosaurs.
If Science will keep their perverted religion known as evolution out of the classrooms, then come back and yack about your aversion to religion being taught in that same classroom. Until that time? Go look for dinobots magical uniformity to somehow emerge into the arena or empirical evidence where Science resides.
Evolution is a religion
Report Post »Christianity is a religion
Lesbian Packing Hollow Points
Posted on June 20, 2011 at 7:45pmEvolution is a theory. Creationism is a religion.
Report Post »louise
Posted on June 20, 2011 at 8:19pmAnd Humanism (the belief that man can solve all problems of humanity on his own) is ALSO a ‘religion’. In essence, Humanism is man worshiping himself.
Report Post »So the public educational system that tries to wipe out “religion” in our schools is in fact, rather has in fact, set up it’s own religion.
The10thAmendment
Posted on June 20, 2011 at 8:41pmLesbian Packing Hollow Points
Posted on June 20, 2011 at 7:45pm
Evolution is a theory. Creationism is a religion.
————————————————————————————————————————————————
Word play not withstanding. Evolution is a “theory” entirely based on “faith”. Creation is a “theory” based on faith.
Evolution has no standard on empirical evidence.
Creation has no standard on empirical evidence.
Neither are Science, and both are religious in nature based on their similar constructs of being a system of beliefs, having no evidence supporting either. Neither should ever have a place in a Science classroom in preference one over the other, or even at all.
Science in America advanced extremely well all the way up the the 1960′s without evolution being taught. The paradigm shift occurred when the US Government felt that America had fallen behind the Socialism of the Soviet Union, and at that point re-introduced it. Jimmy the peanut brain Progressive made it dominant when he stole the rights of the States and perverted education through the Department of Education.
That should be no wonder, as progressives are completely against the individualism of Christianity, and for the destruction of the American Republic.
Report Post »Meyvn
Posted on June 20, 2011 at 9:55pmYes they can. And do. Anyone who thinks otherwise suffers myopia. Sorry Lesbian, but science is required in my Church services. Take some time to listen to these audio broadcasts. It will help to break the myopic view.
http://www.khouse.org/6640_cat/technical/
Report Post »woodyl1011fl
Posted on June 20, 2011 at 10:28pmEvolution is a religious worldview belief system. You will meet your creator one day and your overbearing self-righteous arrogance and ignorance like that of “locked” will vanish in a nanosecond of time and you will in that same time frame realize that what you all mocked is Totally True!
Report Post »Lesbian Packing Hollow Points
Posted on June 20, 2011 at 10:46pm@The10thAmendment: Evolution, as a science, has scientific criteria for judging empirical evidence. If it did not, it would not be a science.
But, it’s not surprising that someone who believes that god spoke the human being into existence from the dust of the Earth would be capable of digesting such studies as mitochondrial DNA assays and copious fossil evidence showing transitional forms such as dinosaurs with feathers for warmth long before the evolution of birds that can use feathers for flight.
Try reading something like this which I found through a quite simple google search: http://anthro.palomar.edu/evolve/evolve_3.htm
@Meyvn: Any religious people can weave a pseudo-scientific tale around their own dogma as a farcical claim of scientific support. Pretty universally, such pseudo-scientific claims break down and depart from the science they proclaim to follow if one merely follows their lines of illogic deeply enough while simultaneously following the findings of the true science itself.
I’ve already wasted far too much of my time studying such religion in scientific garb to waste any more of it on yours.
Report Post »beckwasfox
Posted on June 21, 2011 at 12:22pmDo not cast your pearls before swine…
Report Post »Locked
Posted on June 20, 2011 at 7:12pmI do have a pretty strong hunch that it’s all about desperation for validation. More so than having proof is the desire for the belief that you have proof. It’s hard to accept something by faith alone, so hard that most people can’t do it. There is a need for the belief of having evidence, there’s the need for peer pressure, there’s a need to stamp out sources of doubt, and there’s a need for constant repetition and reminders.
Report Post »HankScram
Posted on June 20, 2011 at 8:35pmI think you’re right. And I think getting over the need to “stamp out doubt” is a huge step forward. Having doubt, accepting doubt, enjoying the mystery, knowing your religion is just a guess – that is freedom to think, freedom to see the world from many different perspectives. It’s a little hairy for most.
Report Post »4XGrace
Posted on June 20, 2011 at 7:11pmThe Bible speaks of a literal 6 days of creation (God rested on the 7th day). Evolution speaks in terms of Carbon 14 dating … the MOST unreliable form of dating that exists. More reliable dating puts the earth at no more than 10, 000 years old. As soon as “science” exposes the myths, lies and deceptions of the evolutionists then it will return to the ideal that it is purported to be not just another tool to deny the existence of God. Science is not a tool to prove or disprove God or the Bible. The Bible is the measure by which all science has to be gauged.
Report Post »Locked
Posted on June 20, 2011 at 7:32pm@Grace
Unfortunately, science has dating of several molecules much more stable than Carbon-14. They indicate the world and universe to be billions of years old. When I asked the author of “Thousands Not Billions” (which is likely where you got your facts about Carbon-14) how this could be, he said “There’s no problem as long as God created the world already with these molecules in a state of decay.”
Unfortunately, this means that science can never know anything because in the end “God did it” to mess with us. No evidence exists for this view, of course.
Report Post »trolltrainer
Posted on June 20, 2011 at 8:41pmReally? Dr. DeYoung gave that answer? The guy who simplified the work of the RATE team that showed how Helium diffusion and radio halos show a young earth. The guy who breaks down ALL the flaws and assumptions of radiometric dating actually gave you THAT answer? I would have thought he would have mentioned that the main principle for radiometric dating is the ASSUMPTION that decay rates have remained constant and then gone on to explain to you the MULTIPLE proofs that this is not the case. Hmmm…Go figure…
Report Post »Locked
Posted on June 20, 2011 at 9:46pm@Troll
Perhaps there wasn’t time? I spoke with him at the latest CSR meeting. He said “Carbon 14 is unstable, but there are several stable molecules we can use. Mathematically they are much more sound, even if they have half-lives in the millions and billions of years.”
His explanation for this was that god set it up so the molecules were already decayed.
Report Post »trolltrainer
Posted on June 20, 2011 at 7:02pmCreationism is a belief that the universe was created by God. It is a step further than intelligent design which does not specify the creator, only that it was intelligent.
Science is a discipline that tries to answer questions about our environment by applying repeatable and confirm-able observation. A more exact definition is:
“a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.”
By definition creationism, intelligent design, OR EVOLUTION, big bang, or ANY other theory CANNOT be science! It is not observable or repeatable.
Can any of these beliefs co-exist with science? Sure! They all can. They each try to use science to support the theory. IMHO creationism comes the closest to accounting for all the known scientific facts in its theory. Just my 2 cents…
Report Post »Locked
Posted on June 20, 2011 at 7:16pm@Troll
Evolution is in fact repeatable, observable, and testable. Even ID-enthusiasts admit it is; they usually just argue “macro” versus “micro” (or sexual selection versus speciation).. Creationists won’t (depending on how fundamentalist they are), but they also don’t believe in scientific evidence.
Report Post »trolltrainer
Posted on June 20, 2011 at 7:28pmActually Locked, you are simply playing a game of semantics here. “Evolution” cannot be proven and has never been observed. You are talking about “adaptation” and that involves the LOSS of genetic material. This is proven fact, just ask any animal breeder. You cannot show any life gaining genetic material, you can only show mutations and none are beneficial though they may have beneficial side effects. These mutations are too limited to bring about a change in any species, at least as far as we can observe. Believe me, if they could ever prove this you would hear about it, they would insist it proved evolution.
Report Post »Locked
Posted on June 20, 2011 at 7:41pm@Troll
It is semantics, and unfortunately you’re not using scientific terms (although technically macro and micro evolution aren’t scientific either). Evolution can be seen, and can even be guided by humans. The definition of evolution is:
Report Post »Biology . change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift.
There have been many experiments that have caused this. fruit flies to birds to plants to microscopic organisms.
trolltrainer
Posted on June 20, 2011 at 7:53pmUnfortunately Locked, you are not using proper scientific terms. Biological evolution requires a population to split into a new species. You cannot show this. You can show a wolf becoming a poodle..But it is the same species. It is adaptation due to the loss of genetic data. You may skew the facts in your favor by playing with the taxonomy of a genus, creating a “new” species…But if it walks like a duck…When you can show one species becoming another you will have shown “evolution.” Until then you are playing word games to try and prove something that science has already shown to be impossible…
Report Post »123456789_0
Posted on June 20, 2011 at 8:35pmtrolltrainer, you’re splitting hairs by judging evolutionary biology based on your chosen definition of science. On the Origin of Species did outline several testable hypotheses, that have not been systematically rejected, although it tested no hypotheses on its own. laws have been generated, and all branches of science and modern human thought have been impacted by Darwin’s theoretical reasoning nonetheless. natural phenomena do not have to be repeatable; testable aspects of it only have to be observable. we can understand phenomena through those observable proxies more coherently, but whether we can ever fully understand naturally occurring phenomena, repeatable or not, is the same question that’s been central to the Popper-Kuhn debate for the past sixty years. in fact, both sides of the debate agree that a theory, law, or hypothesis can never be proven, only not rejected. it’s why you never say the null hypothesis is proven true in any type of scientific undertaking, only that the null hypothesis was not rejected.
Report Post »trolltrainer
Posted on June 20, 2011 at 8:46pmSuites me number dude! By those terms I have proven God in several ways. It is all good! :-)
Report Post »123456789_0
Posted on June 20, 2011 at 8:48pmtrolltrainer, you obviously remember some aspects of the theory of evolution from high school, or maybe you even took a bio 101 class at undergrad, but you’re not an expert. Darwin’s theory of evolution is the continual dialectec interaction of biological ever-changing organisms with their ever-changing environment. it does not involve a wolf becoming a poodle. it would involve a wolf and a poodle branching off separately into different species of wolves and poodles b/c of genetic mutation and reproduction over time. but some of those different specifies of wolves and poodles would die off b/c of some natural disadvantage they possess with their changing environment; for instance, if humans who like poodles died off b/c of global climate change, then domesticated poodles would lose their dominant predator ally on the food chain, opening them up to attacks by wolves who liked to eat poodles but were prevented from doing so when humans were around. b/c of adaptatuion, only those poodles that had mutated and gained a natural advantage by with poisonous teeth built into their tails would survive, while all other poodles died. an equilibrium would be reached. but meanwhile the wolves have also evolved into two separate species b/c of the humans going extinct. this does happen all the time. witness: the ashboarer in public parks across the midwest; ddt and mosquitos carrying malaria. but i’m not an expert either. i don’t know about all the current controversies.
Report Post »trolltrainer
Posted on June 20, 2011 at 9:05pmWow, number dude…Forgive my uneducated stupidity…How is it you can assume my education level on this subject? I was with you until just after the wolves and poodles branched off into separate families. But what does mutation have to do with it? You are making the classic lay error of overemphasizing what a mutation is. Mutations kill with very few exceptions. The poodle came into being because it lost all the genetic information the wolf had except what it takes to make a poodle. There were no mutations involved, the poodle has no genetic information that the wolf does not. No poisonous teeth or venomous tail…You must have just watched X-Men…You cannot show any specimen forming new genetic information, even by mutation. Sorry Charlie…Just does not work. You can go on believing in it and I will go on believing in God.
Report Post »123456789_0
Posted on June 20, 2011 at 9:06pmSuites me number dude! By those terms I have proven God in several ways. It is all good! :-)
you’re not getting it. you can never prove that god exists, or that evolution is pulse that perpetuates all of life. you can only have theoretical underpinnings that filter through what you see as credible information and what you see as fake. but the fact of the matter is, no matter how much you go to church, read the bible, see god in someone you think is your soul mate, and see goodness in charity, your humanity will limit you from knowing whether or not god exists or science can explain reality until the day you die and you either cease to exist, or see the light at the end of the tunnel for yourself. until then, you will always be limited by socialized bias, susceptible to misinformation, and stuck in an unending battle, struggling to see the truth of existence.
Report Post »123456789_0
Posted on June 20, 2011 at 9:24pmTrolltrainer,
you cannot under-emphasize genetic mutation. the poodle was not created b/c it was stripped of a genetic cone that the wolf contains; though that in-itself is a form of mutation, but poodles did not evolve from wolves. they both descend from a common species that no longer exists from hundreds or thousands of years ago. the poodle exists b/c the DNA structure that makes it a poodle successfully reproduces continuously over time and is not obstructed by other aspects of its envriornment; like a natural predator, the wolf, or changes in air quality. mutations are rare, but they do occur, and unless they occur repeatedly and present some new natural advantage withini the environment they exist in, they will fail. if there’s an advantage, they will reproduce. this can happen if that new breed of poodle migrates to a different envrionment where it has an advantage and reproduces apart from the old poodle, or if the new poodle has an advantantage over the old b/c of a change in its environment. things are not static. they are dynamic, b/c everything in nature is absolutely interconnected and reliant on everything around it for its continuation and its change.
by the way, i hate x-men, and i’m not saying your stupid. i’m not an expert either. but if you want to think seriously about science, then you have to stop using it to justify holes you’re trying to fill in your religious beliefs with it, and take it as it is apart from your beliefs about god.
Report Post »Cesium
Posted on June 20, 2011 at 9:53pm@Troll Evolution has been observed!!! The evidence for it keeps piling up!!! here is one reference in the journal of Science http://www.uwyo.edu/BUERKLE/evol_life3500/papers/hendry00_plusdisc.pdf
There are others!!!! I am not going to do the research for you and the rest of the ignorant bible thumpers.. the problem is everyone satisfies themselves with their stupid bibles because it’s easy and lazy rather than trying to understand the science
Report Post »joe1234
Posted on June 21, 2011 at 9:52amcesium: evolution is nothing more than a racist atheist fairy tale…lets see nothing to support evolution in the fossil record, thus the need for punctuated equilibrium…vestigial organs…no such thing….junk dna…no such thing… Nothing in the lab either….Burke, Dunham et al, “Genome-wide analysis of a long-term evolution experiment with Drosophila,” Nature 467, 587-590 (30 September 2010); doi:10.1038/nature09352.
sorry.
Report Post »joel228
Posted on June 21, 2011 at 11:08pmCesium, I looked up your supposed evidence. It has to do with Salmon breeding in isolation. Like fish the word evolution is very slippery. There is nothing in that article that in the slightest way supports the kind of evolution that is in question. NO ONE disputes variation within a kind. Like dog breeding that is all the report has. Why do evolutionists always try to change terms in the debate – unless they know they have the weaker argument.
Report Post »Cesium
Posted on June 22, 2011 at 12:48amI gave one example of something I found randomly online.. I’m not going to go through the pile of publications to link on here! Where do you get the concept that evolution is “slippery?”. You say you teach it? I would suggest you read Daniel Dennetts book “Darwins Dangerous Idea” so that you can better understand how evolution works. and Joe1234… you need to know the difference between truth and ignorance.. Evolution is not racist… Darwin in fact was quite in opposition to such concepts but you’d have to be educated to know this. If you truly understood evolution, you would understand that evolution doesn’t care at all about some nazi plan for “eugenics.” Darwin knew this very well so there is no way Darwin would support that and he spoke against it!
Report Post »joe1234
Posted on June 22, 2011 at 9:23amcesium, evolution is racist as hell…oh please you’re totally ignorant if you think your racist savior darwin was against racism…why don‘t you list for me the ’lower races’ your savior refers to…
“The more civilized so-called Caucasian races have beaten the Turkish hollow in the struggle for existence. Looking to the world at no very distant date, what an endless number of the lower races will have been eliminated by the higher civilised races throughout the world.” (Darwin, Charles R. [English naturalist and founder of the modern theory of evolution], “The Life of Charles Darwin”, [1902], Senate: London, 1995, reprint, p.64).
Report Post »joe1234
Posted on June 22, 2011 at 9:30amoh and cesium as far as eugenics…Darwin led directly to hitler….
The Darwin-Hitler connection is no recent discovery. In her classic 1951 work The Origins of Totalitarianism, Hannah Arendt wrote: “Underlying the Nazis’ belief in race laws as the expression of the law of nature in man, is Darwin’s idea of man as the product of a natural development which does not necessarily stop with the present species of human being.”
The standard biographies of Hitler almost all point to the influence of Darwinism on their subject. In Hitler: A Study in Tyranny, Alan Bullock writes: “The basis of Hitler’s political beliefs was a crude Darwinism.” What Hitler found objectionable about Christianity was its rejection of Darwin’s theory: “Its teaching, he declared, was a rebellion against the natural law of selection by struggle and the survival of the fittest.”
John Toland’s Adolf Hitler: The Definitive Biography says this of Hitler’s Second Book published in 1928: “An essential of Hitler’s conclusions in this book was the conviction drawn from Darwin that might makes right.”
In his biography, Hitler: 1889-1936: Hubris, Ian Kershaw explains that “crude social-Darwinism” gave Hitler “his entire political ‘world-view.’ ” Hitler, like lots of other Europeans and Americans of his day, saw Darwinism as offering a total picture of social reality. This view called “social Darwinism” is a logical extension of Darwinian evolutionary theory
Report Post »joe1234
Posted on June 22, 2011 at 9:33am@cesium…amazing all the people that have made the connection between darwin, eugenics and hitler…eugenics is nothing more than applied evolution…but then you’d have to have some intelligence to realize that instead instead of being a brain-dead darwiniac…
A direct line runs from Darwin, through the founder of the eugenics movement-Darwin’s cousin, Francis Galton-to the extermination camps of Nazi Europe.” (Brookes, Martin.,”Ripe old age,“ Review of ”Of Flies, Mice and Men,” by Francois Jacob, Harvard University Press, 1999. New Scientist, Vol. 161, No. 2171, 30 January 1999, p.41)
I would say get a clue, but you need to evolve some brains first…and since there is no evolution…you’re out of luck…
Report Post »JP4JOY
Posted on June 20, 2011 at 6:59pmI’ve long held the belief that our newfound understanding of the “Big Bang” is perfectly suited to the Biblical story. No man knows the length of a “Day” for God. It is written in the Bible that His day is unknown in length. The six days of creation were God‘s Days not man’s.
Darwin never called his Evolution of the Species a theory. That is a perversion of the Progressives of the 20th century. It is now and always will be a hypothesis and a loosely organized one at that.
Report Post »Locked
Posted on June 20, 2011 at 7:22pmEvolution has been observed and proven time and again. ID proponents agree, although they usually argue that evolution is changes within a species, not changes into a new species.
Believing that “6 Days is actually an unknown amount of time” is fine, but it doesn’t explain any of the key questions.
-Where is the Garden of Eden?
-What caused the Great Flood and where did all the water go?
-How did people live so long in the past?
Furthermore, once you start taking liberal interpretations of the Bible, you open all of it up to scrutiny. So a day isn’t a day? How do we know Jesus rose three days later? What if the ascension wasn’t literal? By acknowledging the Bible isn’t infallible, YOU decide YOU know more than the Word of God. (This, by the way, is the creationist view, which is why they don’t believe in evolution or scientific explanations).
In the end, the only way to reconcile the Bible to science is to do what Christianity has always done: pick and choose. The result of this has been hundreds of sects over the years, because people will always interpret the Bible (and other evidence) to their own agenda. ID does this with scientific evidence now, as does creationism, although they have no issue saying “God did it” when they can’t explain something.
Report Post »The10thAmendment
Posted on June 20, 2011 at 7:28pm2 Peter 3:8-9
‘But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.’
Report Post »Locked
Posted on June 20, 2011 at 7:37pmSo 10th, you’re of the opinion that the Bible is fallible, and not to be taken literally? As I said: “In the end, the only way to reconcile the Bible to science is to do what Christianity has always done: pick and choose.”
You can argue practically anything by using scripture. Let people believe whatever they want.
Report Post »trolltrainer
Posted on June 20, 2011 at 7:44pmThe Garden of Eden was transformed in the flood. I subscribe to Dr. John Baumgardner’s Catastrophic Plate tectonics theory which agrees with most secular scientists in that there was originally just a single continent. Instead of gradual continental drift Baumgardner proposes the shift was relatively quick brought on by the world wide flood. We “think” the Garden of Eden was in the Fertile Crescent, but that is a guess. The Bible does name the Tigris and Euphrates but the current rivers we know could have been named after the flood.
The flood itself was caused by the earth crust breaking up and subducting into the molten mantel which caused the molten material to cool quickly upon contact with the oceans which rose the sea level. It also cause mass amounts of superheated steam which cooled in the upper atmosphere causing rain. The water from the flood was always here and still is. The crust was much flatter before the flood and the oceans shallower. Why do you think there are marine fossils on top of most mountains on earth? Anyway, this is, of course, all theory but it has been modeled on the supercomputers at the Los Alamos labs and it is scientifically feasible.
As far as age of man, do you know within the last few years scientists have isolated a gene that, when tweaked, allows lab rats to live like 3 times their normal lifespan. My theory on this is the gene pool was still fresh which enabled the long lives.
Report Post »louise
Posted on June 20, 2011 at 8:06pmHI JP4JOY
Report Post »2Peter3:8…..But do not let this one fact escape your notice, beloved, that with the LORD one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years is as one day.
I love this verse. The way I understand it is that in “God’s time” both a day and a thousand years are ‘similar’ in context.
The word ‘day’ in this verse is from the greek word hemera(#2250) which can mean a literal time between dawn and dark or figuratively a period or an age.
HankScram
Posted on June 20, 2011 at 8:24pmA day isn’t a day. Perhaps. And Jesus is greatly misunderstood. He was no different than you and I, except for insight. God didn’t take the form of a hairy man with toenails and a sack. That guy simply tried to explain the idea of God or the great mystery of life in a way people of the time could understand. Unfortunately, many misunderstood. Today, most religions have completely gone of the rails. The spiritual journey is rare. We are a word full of followers instead of a world of leaders.
Personal responsibility when it comes to the spiritual journey? I don’t see much of it. Its just do what your church deacon, minister or priesthood holder, prophet says. It’s odd, but conservatives puff their chests out about the individual, personal responsibility, and so on, but then capitulate when it comes to their spiritual life – they just roll over and go belly up – and just follow some church and call it their religion. You have to blaze your own spiritual trail in this world or you are nothing more than a pawn in another man’s game. To me, that is the true conservative.
Report Post »WhiteFang
Posted on June 20, 2011 at 9:20pmEverybody here should really pay careful attention to the comment from LOUISE.
Report Post »She has it right, just think about it and the creative ‘days’ will make sense. They are not 24 hour days but time periods, or ages which agrees with the evident age of the earth.
338lapua
Posted on June 20, 2011 at 10:04pm@locked
Report Post »The “everybody knows” argument is really really old. Evolution is a theory. Believe it if you wish. The preponderance of evidence does not support it. The preponderance of acedemics support it, but a critical eye discounts it as fallacy. Believe what you will, I will not denigrate you for your belief, I expect tolerance of mine.
Cesium
Posted on June 20, 2011 at 10:18pm@338 and if you knew the definition of theory you would know theories are ideas that must come from FACT!! It’s unbelievable how uneducated people are on here… mostly what non scientific people do is “hypothesize” Just like they hypothesize a god must exists due to the fact that we exists… However for hypothesis to develop into theory there must be evidence for the hypothesis… in terms of god there is none!!! In terms of Evolution the evidence keeps piling up!!!!!
Report Post »joel228
Posted on June 21, 2011 at 12:14amCesium, if evidence keeps piling up in favor of evolution, tell me what you think is on top of the pile right now. Is there a single piece of evidence that should be convincing evidence? Some years ago I took an on-line course on how to be a better evolution teacher. In that class I debated with a class full of evolution teachers (20 plus) each with many years of evolution teachings The arguments presented were surprisingly easy to refute and nothing at all was strong individually or even collectively. Only a few would even attempt to counter or refute my arguments which for the most part was to show the weaknesses in their position. Their arguments were so weak they even included the very debunked and fraudulent Heakel’s embryos argument sometimes called embryonic recapitulation. Tell me about bones and how they supposedly tell a story of changes between major groups. I have a great quote from David Rupp (a geologist and very pro evolution) that today the fossil evidence is even weaker than at the time when Darwin lamented the lack of such. I could go on for many pages but with 1500 characters can’t get much in.
Report Post »DR4SOUL
Posted on June 21, 2011 at 2:28amAs it is used in Scripture, the word “yom” found in the creation account and the the Exodus 20:11 summary, refers to a solar day. It is obvious from the context when “yom” is used in a figurative sense, eg. “in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens (Gen. 2:4), The phrase “evening and morning” is used and the conclusion of each of the creative days. “Yom” is not used figuratively in either Genesis chapter 1 or Exodus 20:11. There is NO Scriptural evidence that God’s days are any different that the days as we experience them. Furthermore, if one subscribes to theistic evolution, he is forced to concede that death existed before sin, causing a major theological problemm, since according to Genesis and the Apostle Paul in Romans 5:12: “Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men.” You can‘t have death before sin and be faithful to God’s Word. Therefore, attempts to harmonize some form of evolution and the Scriptural account are inconsistent with what the Bible teaches.
Report Post »Furthermore the order of creation described in Genesis is impossible to harmonize with the stages of evolutionary developement. Think about it! Plant life was created on day 3 while the sun and moon, the greater and lesser lights, were created on day 4. How much better to take God at his Word?.
TomFerrari
Posted on June 21, 2011 at 10:14amPray for “hankscram” – for him to see the truth – for his eternal soul – and for God to forgive his blasphemy.
Report Post »madarain
Posted on June 21, 2011 at 4:34pmHankScram: “Jesus is greatly misunderstood”…Yes, by YOU. Look Genius, Jesus, was either exactly who he said he was…the Son of God (and he offered plenty of evidence to those around him which is why they believed)…or he was the biggest LIAR who ever walked the planet and a person who God would have wanted dead for his transgressions against him. There are no other choices…Either the Son of God, or the worst liar in history. You cannot have it anyother way and if you try to be nice and placate one group or another by saying he was just some good guy who passed on a message of Love, then you are just another idiot who cannot think straight…which is it…which are you?
Report Post »Cesium
Posted on June 22, 2011 at 12:30am@joel The evidence I refer to are the peer reviewed papers… currently there are recent publications that have claimed to have tracked populations for many years, who because of drastic geographic change have become reproductively isolated… If the results are real, that is a HUUUUGE piece of data for evolution. you can search for publications on the evidence for this in google scholar… then, show me evidence that a woman was made from a rib with XY chromosomes in a garden. In Richard Dawkins book “the greatest show on earth” and “the god delusion” he provides a number of references for these types works..
Report Post »joel228
Posted on June 23, 2011 at 2:26amHave you ever seen Ben Stein’s movie “Expelled”? With a simple question Stein makes Richard Dawkins look foolish. Even got Dawkins admitting that perhaps life started from extra terrestrial intelligence.
You can make dogs reproductively isolated but to extrapolate that as evidence for evolution from one type of creature to another is really grasping and shows the weakness of the arguments.
If you got enough flat earthers to peer review each other’s work it would hardly make a convincing argument that the world is flat. No matter how sincerely they might believe it. What is needed but hard to get in the science circles of today is a paradigm shift in thinking. The earth is not the center of the universe and acceptance of evolution is not the center of rational scientific thought.
Report Post »joel228
Posted on June 23, 2011 at 3:12amAs to creating Eve from a rib in a garden, I don’t see how an evolutionist can make fun of that without much irony. Compared to what evolutionists believe it seems a small thing to believe that a perfectly intelligent being could create life from existing life.
What is really incredible is to believe that life could randomly come from non life to form the first cell. Not only that but to believe in evolution you must also believe that this first magical living cell was created in such a perfect form that after 3.5 billion years it still has not died. All it does it grow, divide and get better and better with time. All living things would have to be in reality 3.5 billion years old. Else explain to me how the first cell died and when life time is reset. I’ve heard that all cells in a human body are replaced every few years but that does not reset our age (unfortunately). First cell and perpetual life (3.5 billion years and counting) is much more a miracle than anything in Biblical creation accounts.
Report Post »ENCINOM
Posted on June 20, 2011 at 6:57pmScience is our feble attempt to understand Gods plan- like a 2 year old trying to understand the blueprints for a sky scraper- might be able to figure out the first floor- but its the other 200 above it that we will never understand
Report Post »commonsenseguy
Posted on June 20, 2011 at 7:44pmso did we change our radical pose for the radical ends again???? encinom or is it monicen??? you are trying to be a sheep in wolves clothing.
Report Post »Cesium
Posted on June 20, 2011 at 9:39pmEncinom must be the dumbest commentator on here… An ignorant liberal plus assumes there is a god… dangerous…
Report Post »ENCINOM
Posted on June 20, 2011 at 9:47pmSorry- Having fun today- old Encinom changed his name to Monicne- so being the concervitive i am, cant let nothing go to waist- i snatched his name up lol
Figured it would be fun for people to see an actuall thought next to the name Encinom.
LoKi-
Report Post »338lapua
Posted on June 20, 2011 at 9:54pmHa Ha Ha Ha Ha
Report Post »Back from the dead, hateful little troll encinom/monicne.
Pink dress back from the cleaners yet?
teddrunk
Posted on June 20, 2011 at 6:57pmBetween the Bible & Science, the Bible is kicking science’s butt as far as accuracy. I’ll stick with it.
Report Post »stephen_a
Posted on June 20, 2011 at 8:05pmGenesis 1:16. “God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars.” The moon is not a light. How is this accurate?
Report Post »BOMUSTGO
Posted on June 20, 2011 at 9:09pmThe moon just reflects light.It is a light as long as it reflects.Have you ever heard the song,”By the light of the silvery moon?”
Report Post »stephen_a
Posted on June 20, 2011 at 9:18pmThe moon is simply not a light source. It reflects the sun, which causes it to appear to be a light source itself, but any all-knowing God would have known otherwise and explained this in his book, right?
Report Post »BOMUSTGO
Posted on June 20, 2011 at 9:19pmThe word light in Genesis means luminary.The moon represents the Messiah. He was born on a full moon during the Feast of Tabernacles and was crucified on a full moon during Passover. The Biblical calendar is a lunar calendar of 360 day years.
Report Post »Cesium
Posted on June 20, 2011 at 9:36pmTed, you’ll stick with it because you have no education so you cannot conceive as to why the bible is so so so inaccurate. Aside from ethical philosophical inquiry, the bible is virtually complete nonsense!!! you sticking with the bible for accuracy means you are sticking to utter ignorance
Report Post »maumau
Posted on June 20, 2011 at 9:44pmF A I T H
Its the hardest thing for people to accept fully. It is that that allows me to trust that my Lord, God and Savior created me and that He also gave me a thirst for Him and for knowledge. science is real we have studied and have put everything under a microscope It is silly to even think ” oh can they both exist,” they do and are. But just as Adam was tested in eden, he was meant to see that tree openly but not eat it, God wanted his trust that He knew what was better. We are meant to discover and learn and also have trust that God is our creator and we can do all things with Him and nothing without Him.
God wanted us to have all of the hard cold facts, and still choose faith . . . get it?
Report Post »338lapua
Posted on June 20, 2011 at 9:51pm@cesium, and ted and I will comfortably accept your scorn. What you think matters not at all. Our relationship with our creator is the only important thing. Matter of fact I INVITE your scorn. Means I am doing something right!
Report Post »Cesium
Posted on June 20, 2011 at 10:04pm@ Troll, you also make no sense when you say “life gaining” mutations… You can introduce genetic material through error in gene duplication as a product of nucleotide exchange repair erros, or transposon /retroviral insertion… It may not be observable in higher eurkaryotes but what you said doesn’t mean anything.. what is a life gaining mutation? success of mutation is highly dependent on environmental design space
Report Post »Cesium
Posted on June 20, 2011 at 10:09pm@338 Where do you get the idea that you receiving scorn is evidence that you are doing something correct? the bible? ha! It’s a nice thought but you are like so many just “self satisfying” Hey, I can’t disagree, it‘s a nice thought to think about god but yours and so many others thoughts about the matter still don’t make it true… but hey, if it makes you feel better to satisfy your ego with those thoughts I fully support a free libertarian country to do so… Just know, I am not impressed by your ability to self satisfy yourself by your hope that god is what the bible says he is…
Report Post »Ron_WA
Posted on June 20, 2011 at 6:55pmAbsolutely. Even Einstein believed in God. I personally believe in both. I believe God created all life & the universe but the creation story in the Bible is only an allegory of how we evolved; it is necessary to teach God’s lessons & appreciation for His gifts.
Report Post »Lesbian Packing Hollow Points
Posted on June 20, 2011 at 7:24pmAnd he disbelieved in quantum physics, which is used to actually create consumer products every day now. Being a mathematics and physics genius in no way makes one infallible. Yet, religion holds up its dogma as the infallible word of god all the time.
That is the difference between science and religion. Science knows that something new may be discovered any given year, day, or hour that completely rewrites all of the science books and falsifies everything science believed up till now because a new, better, more complete truth is found. Religion is arrogant enough to hold truth to be immutable. At least the specific truth of the specific religion.
Report Post »RN MOM
Posted on June 20, 2011 at 8:53pmI hear a lot of agnostic-atheists with Masters and Doctorates who use science as their sword to defy all things about religion. These people use science as the be-all end-all. The Roman Catholic Church has a long history of scientist priests. Galileo himself considered priesthood and had a daughter who was a nun. He was very friendly with the pope- and only condemned himself to (a brief) censure when he decided to rag on the pope in his book. Today Darwin‘s theory of evolution is taught in our schools like it’s law- when in fact the law of bio-genesis dismantles this theory (law trumps theory) Pure pursuit of science is a lot like pure pursuit of God, it can be perverted by men to meet their needs (ie., global warming, jihads, the disciple Judas). It is our jobs to be on guard for the truth when we hear it.
Report Post »Cesium
Posted on June 20, 2011 at 9:31pm@Ron_WA No!!!!! Einstein did not “believe” in god!!!!! Somehow how believers have taken ownership of this misnomer!!! Einstein said: “I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the kind that we experience in ourselves. Neither can I nor would I want to conceive of an individual that survives his physical death; let feeble souls, from fear or absurd egoism, cherish such thoughts. I am satisfied with the mystery of the eternity of life and with the awareness and a glimpse of the marvelous structure of the existing world, together with the devoted striving to comprehend a portion, be it ever so tiny, of the Reason that manifests itself in nature.” When he said “god doesn’t play” dice, this no evidence to indicate Einstien believes in god.. I wish god believers would not take ownership of that.. He said that merely out of metaphor!!
Report Post »338lapua
Posted on June 20, 2011 at 9:43pm@lesbian, please make certain to keep religion separate from those of us who believe the word of God. The two are NOT interchangeable.
Report Post »Lesbian Packing Hollow Points
Posted on June 20, 2011 at 10:15pm.338 Lapua: The word of god = religion
Report Post »Lesbian Packing Hollow Points
Posted on June 20, 2011 at 10:26pm@RN Mom: “Biogenesis is the theory that living things come only from other living things, e.g. a spider lays eggs, which develop into spiders. It may also refer to biochemical processes of production in living organisms.” — http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biogenesis
Nice try. Biogenesis is not a law. It’s a theory, just like evolution, but not truly incompatible with evolution. Biogenesis operates on the scale of macroscopic, multicellular, and complex life. In no way does it forbid the creation of complex organic compounds from inanimate matter by application of natural sources of energy, geothermal heat, lightning discharge, etc. Indeed, just on the basis of the length and detail of the respective Wikipedia articles, Abiogenesis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis is a far more deeply understood concept than Biogenesis.
P.S. Pasteur described Biogenesis as “Spontaneous generation is a dream”. Not exactly a ringing condemnation.
Report Post »Ron_WA
Posted on June 20, 2011 at 11:11pmGod does not equate to religion.
One can have religion & still believe in God – of course there are many who belong to a religion & do not believe in God. I for one believe in God but do not belong to any religion yet I strive to live a spiritual, moral & ethical life.
Report Post »Lesbian Packing Hollow Points
Posted on June 21, 2011 at 2:37amThe public statement of a claim, “Here be the word of god who sayeth, ‘…’” is in an of itself a public practice of religion.
I believe that what you are trying to say is that the private belief that there is a god and that that god uttered a given word, phrase, sentence, paragraph, chapter, or book is not religion, and in that, I would agree with you. Anything which is composed entirely of belief and in no part about action is not religion. That goes by the word of faith. However, once you put that faith into action, in private, but especially in public, like say, on a publicly readable web comment system, then you’ve gone beyond faith to proselytizing, and THAT goes by another word, religion.
Report Post »End The Fed
Posted on June 21, 2011 at 3:20amEinstein DID accept quantum mechanics as a consistent theory for the statistics of the behavior of atoms. He recognized that it was “the most successful physical theory of our time.” Einstein could NOT accept quantum mechanics as a completed theory; its mathematics did not describe individual events.
Einstein, at best, is vague on his beliefs in a Creator to both the atheist and religious fanatic. For others it may be more clear. Consider this quote by Einstein: “Then there are the fanatical atheists whose intolerance is the same as that of the religious fanatics, and it springs from the same source . . . They are creatures who can’t hear the music of the spheres.”
Einstein said that he did not believe in a personal God or personal immortality. One CANNOT infer that he did not believe in God. How can one infer that he did not believe in a God when he consistently told us what he believed what God was and was not? He definitely believed in something other than nothing; it just just so happens that his beliefs do NOT conform with religious dogma or atheism. Makes sense to me!
Report Post »RN MOM
Posted on June 21, 2011 at 7:35amLPHP- Your dancing around two different ideas. Even wiki states Biogenesis is a law, the second “abiogenesis” is a theory. The Law of Biogenesis is that every living thing came from some other living thing. The “theory of abiogenesis” attempts to explain the creation of first signs of life from primordial soup. So let me ask you: where did the first spider come from? The LAW of biogenesis states it had to have come from another living thing….hmmm, my answer is God. As for the theory of abiogenesis, it can hang out with the theory of evolution until they become laws.
Report Post »Lesbian Packing Hollow Points
Posted on June 21, 2011 at 10:05am@RN Mom:
And you can hang out with the other proponents of Creationism/Creation Science/Intelligent Design or whatever the nome du jour of the movement becomes as you struggle with Supreme Court defeat after Supreme Court defeat in your attempts to deny the obvious, that you want your religion taught in public school science classrooms, until you finally succeed in packing the high court with like-minded tools (addle-minded fools) and you succeed in making IT (man’s) law.
I assure you, if the nation hasn’t imploded economicly and socially by then, it will implode scientificly and engineeringly (I know that’s not a real word) shortly thereafter as the quality of public science education degrades to the point that our own graduates will not be able to understand the world around them sufficiently to be able to rescue the infrastructure around them, which crumbles, or to build products which are of sufficient quality to be manufactured by technological machinery.
Political leaders, even those publicly clamouring for the same thing you want, religion in the classroom, know that our technical excellence is predicated on teaching scientific truth, not religious truth, to the next generation, so I feel very secure indeed that the SCOTUS will continue to be the bulwark against religion in the classroom.
Report Post »MBN
Posted on June 21, 2011 at 11:45am@ LPHP
If you think science is not dogmatic then I suggest that you think again.
You write, “Science knows that something new may be discovered any given year, day, or hour that completely rewrites all of the science books and falsifies everything science believed up till now because a new, better, more complete truth is found.”
I say, “Bologna!” because science like any human endeavor is subject to human imperfections and vices (i.e. political shenanigan, liars, fakers, dooms saying, and even dogmatic belief). In global warming alarmism, all of this is at play and one cannot refute or deny this.
The scriptures teach us that we are to learn “line upon line” & “precept upon precept”. We are to learn “here a little and there a little”. Additionally, the scriptures teach that where more light and knowledge is sought it is given and that when man turns away from light and knowledge that which he has already is even taken away. True religion accepts that revelation is a way to learn and that there is still much of God’s knowledge and wisdom to learn. Empiricism is not the only way to derive truth.
This is true religion, to feed the hungry, to cloth the naked, and to care for orphans and widows.
Report Post »RN MOM
Posted on June 21, 2011 at 12:10pmLPHP- I NEVER said that we shouldn‘t teach Darwin’s theory of evolution in the classroom, or the theory of relativity of any theory that questions the existence of God, quite the opposite, I recommend it. True science looks at ALL faces to inside the prism and with diligent research, and reproducible results the truth will emerge. I was objecting to the discarding of alternative scientific theories because they don’t fit into the societal norm.
Scientific development is not contingent upon the acceptance of Darwin’s theory or any one particular theory, that’s a silly argument. If you are insinuating that the RCC holds back scientific development with it’s archaic morals- so be it. I think that some technologies shouldn’t be developed- especially if they devalue the sanctity of human life. The RCC has been stellar in voicing their opposition and reminding us that not all avenues of pursuit are going to lead to a better world.
I will proudly stand with Creationists because 1. I don‘t think Darwin’s theory is viable and 2. I think that a divine hand did originate this world. Intelligent Design still cannot be disproved, even String Theory doesn’t answer creation.
Report Post »madarain
Posted on June 21, 2011 at 4:11pmLesbian Packing Hollow Points: The correct definition of Religion is a man-made, devised system by which humans attempt to interest or relate to God…i.e. Catholocism, Lutheran, etc. Your definition of “religion” seems to be just about any pursuit or interest man has is God himself or the things of God. The two are vastly different. The Pope, is a highly religious person, but the same could not be said of Noah, because one employs a prescribed system to conduct strict interactions and the other spoke and listened as friends or aquaintances would. Knowing God, beleiving in God and praying to God are not religious acts…Saying Hail Marys is a religious act.
Report Post »louise
Posted on June 20, 2011 at 6:53pmScience has shown us evidence in the earth of Biblical truths. So I would say yes, both science and creationism can co-exist.
Report Post »HankScram
Posted on June 20, 2011 at 8:06pmCreationism and Religion – who’s definition of either? If Religion means crazy stories about God giving authority to certain people – NO. If Religion means what we discern on our individual path – YES.
Science does not need to reconcile to most people’s religion. Science should inform our religion. When science tells us our religious beliefs are goofy, we change our religious beliefs. Its part of a spiritual journey that assumes God did not lie to us by creating a universe that does not reflect him.
In other words – the truth is in the ground – archeology – the sky, the clouds, the stars.
Here again, many conservatives dismiss science because it doesn’t fit their preconceived ideas of God. Change your ideas – grow, progress, learn. Don’t just wake up each morning looking for everything in the world that can simply confirm our existing beliefs. We don’t know jack. Let’s not be afraid to learn.
Report Post »338lapua
Posted on June 20, 2011 at 9:40pm@louise, I totally agree.
Report Post »@hankscram is confused….really confused.
LIBSALWAYSLIE
Posted on June 20, 2011 at 6:52pmAKMIIKEUS is too stupid to understand how ignorant he is
Report Post »BigJTrucker
Posted on June 20, 2011 at 6:52pmI believe they can. IMHO, religion explains why the universe works, science explains how the universe works.
Report Post »nomercy63
Posted on June 20, 2011 at 6:51pmI like Ben Franklins version of what religion is and I think a good balance between science and belief in God
Report Post »Obeckian1984
Posted on June 20, 2011 at 8:56pmhttp://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False Religions/Illuminati/hellfire_club.htm
Report Post »Exrepublisheep
Posted on June 20, 2011 at 6:49pmYes they can, and have to. It is our imperfect knowledge of both that causes difficulties.
Report Post »Texas Grasshopper
Posted on June 20, 2011 at 6:58pmspeaking of science I am watching this now ..holy crap ..I didnt know much about HAARP ..this is the History channel HD show on HAARP ….start watching what is going on in the mid-west …..remember that hot spot of a 40 degree increase in about 15 minutes ….hmmm
Report Post »Texas Grasshopper
Posted on June 20, 2011 at 7:01pmwatch the video then think about he drought and current jet stream ….I swear it will blow your mind …..I really hope I am just an idiot *LOL*
Report Post »solaveritas
Posted on June 20, 2011 at 7:09pmWhen you crank in the variations of “time” caused by the slowing of the speed of light between the first “day” and the “seventh”, creationism and “science” are THE SAME. This was explained in a recent Christian-produced movie. BOTH a young earth and an old earth are true!
In the end, the TRUTH of creation and SCIENCE, MUST “coincide” because God made BOTH. True understanding of both will show that each corroborates the other.
But, when we are living in only four of at least ten dimensions, we don’t understand completely. So, it is foolish to “war” over what we can’t completely know.
Quantum physicists (apart from faith) believe that Darwinian Evolutionists are, well, stupid. (See the book, THE FIELD by Lynn McTaggert). What “is” is so awesome that it could never be explained by “accidents” and “random gene mutation” following a “big bang”.
Eagerly, genuinely search for God…… and He will find you.
Report Post »Locked
Posted on June 20, 2011 at 7:12pmIt depends firmly on the individual person. In the end, one needs to look at his or her own motivation. Do you hold the pre-conceived understanding that God created the universe? Then you will naturally gravitate toward facts that support your conclusion, and ignore those that don’t. It’s not “pure science,” it’s science to support a decision one has already embraced. If you’re convinced this is the “truth” though, what does the evidence matter?
On the other hand, scientists may come with a pre-conceived notion that there can be no God. The entire issue is that, until we find direct, testable evidence for God, the possibility cannot be discounted.
People will believe whatever they want to believe. If someone believes they can’t be reconciled, they’ll make up their own version of things. That’s why there are so many sects of Christianity, after all.
Report Post »The10thAmendment
Posted on June 20, 2011 at 7:19pmThe clash between science and “religion” is a misnomer to begin with. There is nothing in science that contradicts the Bible. Nothing at all. What does contradict the Bible are the mutual and eventually collaborative perversions of science known as micro and macro evolution. Having witnessed the complete collapse of uniformity in the Darwin religion of evolution (even his warm pool theory died with the utter collapse of spontaneous generation), Gould at Harvard postulated cladogenesis, or punctuated equilibrium.
Evolutionists claim that without evolution Biology falls apart. That’s utter horse crap peddled by demagogues. Biology doesn’t require an absolutely unprovable theory for the experimental science to stand alone. Conversely, evolution absolutely requires Biology (which is a legitimate Science) to even have a second leg to stand on.
I love what Nobel Prize Winning Evolutionary Biologist from Harvard, Dr. George Wald had to say.
“Most modern Biologists, having reviewed with satisfaction the downfall of the spontaneous generation hypothesis, yet unwilling to except the alternative “BELIEF” (keyword) in special creation, are left with nothing.”
Wald was a Professor Emeritus of Biology at Harvard.
Science can co-exist with Biblical truths, but Biblical truths and evolution (which is no more than a belief system based on faith) are completely incompatible.
Report Post »Hepzibah
Posted on June 20, 2011 at 7:34pmI agree with Exrepublisheep. Science is studying the laws that God set down at the beginning of time and declaring there is no Intelligent Design. It’s like an ant examing a fallen leaf and declaring he knows all there is to know about trees. Yet, this inconsistency also applies to us Christians. We read the Creation story and believe (for instance) that string theory has nothing to do with God. Really? String theory may be how Jesus healed people and walked on water! Remember, although Jesus is God – he walked the earth as a human being. Perhaps, by increasing the vibrations of his strings he may have become lighter than water. Also, by increasing the string vibrations of others, perhaps Jesus produced a healing in these people. These are just my theories – but then isn’t evolution also a theory?
Report Post »LOOKING_BOTH_WAYS
Posted on June 20, 2011 at 7:37pmCan Creationism and Science Co-Exist?…….. why yes
and so can Beck and Jones in they only try ……………………………………..lol
Report Post »fatjack
Posted on June 20, 2011 at 7:37pmWhen creation and science conflicts it means man has made an error. As God is the author of both.
Report Post »underoath_1999
Posted on June 20, 2011 at 7:55pmOne of the biggest problems with traditional Creationism is the fact that most Christians believe that the Earth is only about 6,000 years old or so based on genealogy and so forth. When you take a closer look at the 7 days of creation you see that days 1 through 3 weren’t time frames as we know it because the Son was the light. Million of years passed by during these first 3 days of creation and I have no problem with science proving this. Until day 4 we don’t have the sun and moon being created so time as we know it, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year doesn’t exist until then. There really shouldn’t be a debate because science often confirms Christianity but only if we pay attention to the details in the Bible. Surface meaning will get you nowhere biblically or scientifically. They both require deeper studying and research to understand.
Report Post »GoingBeck
Posted on June 20, 2011 at 8:01pmAll science needs to do is explain what matter evolved from.
Report Post »NOTYERHUCKLEBERRY
Posted on June 20, 2011 at 8:17pmAbsolutely, they can. As for the explanation of the earth only being 6000 years old, try this one on.
Report Post »Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. O.K. we now have the heaven and the earth.
Genesis 1:2 And the earth was (became) without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. What the heck happened?
Between 1:1 and 1:2 was the fall of Lucifer. It nearly destroyed the earth. Then God sets about rebuilding it into the earth we know. That is, pre-flood.
There is no telling how much time went by between 1:1 and 1:2 let alone what is left from the first heaven and earth.
Remember one other thing, time is a prison of man, not God. He sees the beginning as well as the end.
HankScram
Posted on June 20, 2011 at 8:28pmThere has never been a moment – a second – in my life where my religion conflicted with science. I was kind of shocked as I grew older to learn that this is actually a conflict for people. For the life of me, I could never see how some piece of scientific information could mess with a person’s religious belief – until I learned that many people’s religious beliefs are immovable – they call them core values I guess. I’ve always seen life as a learning process, not a process of trying to prove to myself and others that everything I believe is right. Sounds boring.
Report Post »stacybernardslay
Posted on June 20, 2011 at 8:29pmBy definition they already do co-exist. But they can never be the same – Faith is a belief you cannot prove. If you can prove it, it isn’t faith, it’s science. To mix the two up leads us to the Gaia-worshipping, global warming moonbats we have today.
Report Post »Thomas
Posted on June 20, 2011 at 8:35pmNeither the “Big Bang Theory” nor Evolution does not disprove the bible or God but only someones theological interpretation. On the idea of whether there is a God or not, good science yet remains neutral. Since God is tracing genes in the bible, doesn’t that mean that God new about evolution before science? Does Genesis 30:39 where Jacob is dealing with the flocks of sheep reveals that God had taught him something about genes and how they are passed from generation to generation?
The things spoken about in Genesis 1 that God did in an instant mentally/Spiritually is still unraveling in the progress of time and Genesis 2:1-3 from the point of view of the physical has not yet happened. Now Adam was the start of a new segment of time called the Adamic age (of which the bible deals with) within a much older segment of time that could be millions or billions of years old. Adam was something new introduced to this world. Time is actually insignificant to the God. Genesis 6 speaks about Adam’s offspring (called the Sons of God) being mixed with the humanoid evolved creatures, that were here before Adam, through their daughters. Noah was mixture and so are we. Adam’s offspring introduced language and objectivity to the purely subjective and emotional world of the animal. Adam is the missing link that science has yet to find because of his origin as an angelic genes that were placed in a physical body his bones dissolved after death and so did his descendants that were giant.
Report Post »Obeckian1984
Posted on June 20, 2011 at 8:43pmYes science and creationism can co exist
it’s science and Man made Religion that run counter to
each other.
Religion has a long history of being wrong and science
being correct.
the most logical assumptions would have to be that we were created
Report Post »by some higher power, but how do you accept religious dogma
from the dark ages ?
booger71
Posted on June 20, 2011 at 8:44pmThey have coexisted since the beginning of time
Report Post »TomFerrari
Posted on June 20, 2011 at 8:46pm2Pe 2:8 – a day is as a thousand years…
Earth was without form and void…
darkness moved upon the face of the earth…
While my faith does not REQUIRE science and the Bible agree, I certainly see where it is POSSIBLE.
What I DO find interesting is all the cities and evidence of wars, catastrophies, etc., that are ONLY recorded in the Bible that we discover only RECENTLY are FACTUAL.
Since the Bible is the inspired word of God, science will never be able to DISPROVE the Bible.
I also believe that God likely guided the hands of HONEST men as it was translated, such as when King James compelled its translation to English. (Probably not physcially moving their fingers, but, at least guiding or inspiring their efforts or thoughts.) I think some modern translations have been influenced by men with their own sectarian or denominational bias(es). Likewise, I believe God led man to find the Dead Sea Scrolls.
In general, I’m nonplussed by this book.
Report Post »HankScram
Posted on June 20, 2011 at 8:51pmI hate to insult my fellow conservatives, BUT
Many Conservatives don‘t believe in Evolution because they haven’t done it yet.
they fear science because it contradicts their beliefs and fear education because it gives someone (a child) the tools to question beliefs . . . hence they “cling” to their religion – stuck in the mud – unable to grow, change or learn. It becomes impossible to reconcile many religious beliefs with science – so the easiest thing is to just reject science, reject higher education, make fun of people who go to Harvard, Yale, Columbia – make fun of professors – . . . its just so much easier than realizing that some of your deepest held beliefs are B.S.
Reminds me of a friend who was LDS CHURCH (I like the LDS – I’m a Romney supporter). He woke up one morning, swung his feet out of bed still half asleep, and says that when his feet hit the ground on the side of his bed, he had this overwhelming realization that the LDS church was full of lies, that Joseph Smith was a fraud. He stood in the shower in tears. He told his wife at breakfast. She cried and said she knew that for years. They resigned. But how long did he live that lie? Why was it so hard to realize and leave? We want to believe even when we know better.
Report Post »Obeckian1984
Posted on June 20, 2011 at 8:59pmboth science and religion are corrupted by evil men who want to
Report Post »control the world.
Cesium
Posted on June 20, 2011 at 9:06pmyou can write books, hypothesize, feel, hope, and wish all you want but there is no shred of good reason for one to assume anything the bible says about “supernaturalness” is remotely true…. If anyone is actually interested in real truth you cannot find it in the bible but only in science!…and science is not always right first go around! The truth is we do not know what happens when you die; we do not know there is a god or multiple gods vs nothing… that is the truth!… if you think otherwise you are either wishing or a typical brainswhashed bible thumper scared of a myth and quick to judge others for positing the very likely reality that there may be no creator behind evolution or the universe. Face the truth!!!
Report Post »338lapua
Posted on June 20, 2011 at 9:07pm@underoath_1999
Report Post »Boy I sure love to be lumped together in a group and denigrated.
Obviously only toothless morons believe in creationism….and can therefore be “studied” like lab rats.
None of us are convinced the world is ANY age as there is no reason to decide on an absolute chronology of Biblical history. No Proof is necessary or needed. We are students of Gods wonder. Science is absolutely giving answers to questions we have,and valuable breakthroughs in treatments of disease, and other understanding.. The only “problem” seems to be in your understanding….
jhaydeng
Posted on June 20, 2011 at 9:07pmI think God created the scientific theories that scientists have come across! We won’t find out until we die, so until then be a good person!
Report Post »banjarmon
Posted on June 20, 2011 at 9:10pmHow long is a day for GOD???
Report Post »Ruler4You
Posted on June 20, 2011 at 9:20pmThe contemporary global premise for science is to “create life”, not, as one might expect, to ‘explain our physical universe in quantitative terms using metrics anyone could duplicate (given equal resources). ‘
Which is a shame. Because, through the premise that “science” should be trusted, it has lied, misled, misrepresented, falsified and conspired. All in the name of their particular field. A field, interestingly, that is sweeping the planet at the same time. Now, this suggests BOTH political and professional dark motivations won over their hearts and minds, IMHBLO. And it demonstrates with considerable clarity that without a common morality as a foundation, the goals (of ‘x’ science) become “relative” to the person doing the work.
Both would require some thing there is no longer any of: personal honor.
Report Post »338lapua
Posted on June 20, 2011 at 9:26pm@hankscram, I have read several of your posts on this topic. I am rather stricken by your wish to be considered a conservative. Nothing in ANY of your posts leads me to believe you. You are conflicted about science, you consider people of Jesus “Clingers” and obviously have no regard for us. You are clearly confused about the Bible, the only cure for that is to actually spend time in it. You clearly have invested no time in learning about the word of God. And,to be clear, a non believer reading the Bible does NOT understanding make.
Report Post »Anyone who would pose as a conservative would NOT publicly support Mitt Romney. You obviousl do not even know what constitutes a conservative.
I can only conclude that you ARE a troll, paid for and sent here by someone. Please stop wasting our time as well as yours. We know a con when we see one, and clearly you ARE a con.
American Soldier (Separated)
Posted on June 20, 2011 at 10:04pmI’m an Agnostic. I do believe there is a possibility that there is some higher power that exists out there. Is it the Christian God? Or the Hindu God? I doubt it, I highly doubt it. If this entity exist somewhere up there, in the vast depth of space, I cannot imagine him as being as awful as the Gods mankind has come to worship. I can just picture your God, up there playing The Sims: Earth drinking some mountain dew. He seems less of a God than a child….
Report Post »jb.kibs
Posted on June 20, 2011 at 10:08pmyes they can, and they do… i’ve said this since i can remember..
scientific theories are also faith based.
the reason people don‘t think they can is because of ’blind faith’… which is totally different from faith and questioning everything. which, questioning everything is the basis for scientific research.
saying they can’t co-exist is blind faith on your part.
Report Post »tower7femacamp
Posted on June 20, 2011 at 10:19pmAll of us, who have chosen the path of thinking things through invariably come to the charge of being, “conspiracy theorists”. The slurs are well known and well honed; “Tin hat conspiracy nut”, “Paranoid daydreamers”, “barking moon-bat crazy”, and variations on this theme.
There are scores of Acamaniacs who are professors of “psychology” or “law” who have taken it upon themselves to explain why ‘we’ are disturbed individuals, while ignoring and burying the fact that the paradigm of the system of this society itself is psychotic.
Who can deny that a society and system based on endless war is insane?
Only conformist bean counters and apologists for the
Report Post »Military-Intelligence Industrial Complex.
http://www.henrymakow.com/psyop_theatre.html
Rice Water
Posted on June 20, 2011 at 10:27pm@StacyBernard,
Report Post »That‘s actually the smartest thing I’ve read on here in a long time. Nice!
jv
Posted on June 20, 2011 at 10:31pmThe author is just hitting the tip of the iceberg. For there is actually a very simple mathematical proof for the existence of God hidden within those seven Days he’s speaking of. And within that matthemical formula you will also find a proof for the existence of the Word personified by Jesus Christ Himself. I’m not kidding. Both matters are now settled. But the book doesn’t stop with that. In less than 50 pages it tells us how this formula addresses and resolves just about every great question ever pondered by man. When and how did life begin? What happened to the neanderthals? What hapopened to the lost tribes of Israel? What happened during Jesus’ hidden years? And is there one religion that is superior to all the others? Check it out. It’s all been revealed. And the book that lays it all out is called “Introduction to the 2/3rds Rule, a Christian response to Darwinism” available at Amazon.com .
Report Post »Rice Water
Posted on June 20, 2011 at 10:41pmI’ve read very convincing arguments about the statistical impossibility of random chance being responsible for life as we know it. If anyone were arguing that life were the result of “random chance”, it would be a slam-dunk for Creationists. However, the assembly of the molecules that form the components of organisms is defined by a very precise set of rules. As I’ve said before, the components of a pocketwatch aren’t dictated by the laws of gravity; the components of a molecule ARE.
And concerning the original question, I have no problem accepting that God is working through these perfect devices. My only issue is that ID/Creationism produces no useful science, and no matter how you dress it up, the religious/social agenda is its foremost concern.
Report Post »vennoye
Posted on June 20, 2011 at 10:48pm@Hepzibah
Report Post »Think science is now looking at dark matter, dark energy, string theory, frequency, that do not at all conflict with the Bible. We know Nikola Tesla’s frequency knowledge was used to design HAARP, we know that :
Matthew 12:36 But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment. Matthew 12:37 For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.
Sure sounds like string theory…..if those words never go away……
Eliasim
Posted on June 20, 2011 at 10:56pmOh sure they can. I’m sure God used calculus to create the universe.
Report Post »ILUVJESUS
Posted on June 20, 2011 at 11:12pmCreationism is science. Man developing from lower forms of life is faith based on nothing.
Report Post »ireport uderide
Posted on June 20, 2011 at 11:22pmWith all due respect Prof. Lennox,.If God can‘t create a universe in 7 days then He’s not much of a God, now is He?
Report Post »Let’s admit that no one was there when it happened, we only have a description of how it happened.
Evileye
Posted on June 20, 2011 at 11:26pmThe milky way in relation to the universe would be like golf ball 20 miles away,
Report Post »like atom or less, the earth would be like a sub atomic particle.
why here? and then he made man in gods image.
Some believe god stood an a rock in the holy land and created heaven and earth.
It is said he created the earth then the star Etc In that order.
so we have entity that we look like that claims the earth and all the heaven were made in seven days.
so what is a day but 24 hours. if not why use the term day?
If god talked to people in biblical times why not now?
If the Nile was once blood surly you could find traces, we can find traces of Neanderthal that lived 30,000 years ago
But not one artifact of Jesus.was Jesus man or myth like Hercules or other deities?
If god is a loving why does he kill so many people in the bible? the old testament is a book about genocide
I don’t know the answer to any of theses question and am quit sure no one else does.
This why I consider myself an Agnostic.
It could be true but I doubt.
I Don’t believe people should go around insulting others because for what they do or do not believe.
let alone killing each other or something we will never know the answer to,
joel228
Posted on June 20, 2011 at 11:34pmIn that both creationists and big bang theorists preach that the universe had a beginning both are equally wrong. Only the time frame differs but in eternity the difference is infinitesimal. When the Bible speaks of creating the heavens it is from the perspective of earth. Just look at the other words describing the heavens or firmament.
Report Post »joel228
Posted on June 20, 2011 at 11:43pmWhen pseudo science and false / distorted religion battle it out who wins? For the most part that is what these discussions are about.
Report Post »thepatriotdave
Posted on June 20, 2011 at 11:53pm“Yes they can, and have to.”
=====================
Some very smart scientists are starting to admit to things that they once never dared to speak of. For instance… as science gathers steam and speeds down the track of science discovery and development, scientists are starting to see more and more proof that the stories in the Bible really happened. Wouldn’t it be something if in the end it is science that proves the existence of God!?
http://www.AMillionGoWest.com – Help us get 1 million signatures on a petition that asks Allen West to run for President in 2012.
Report Post »The10thAmendment
Posted on June 21, 2011 at 12:15amvennoye
Posted on June 20, 2011 at 10:48pm
Think science is now looking at dark matter, dark energy, string theory, frequency, that do not at all conflict with the Bible. We know Nikola Tesla’s frequency knowledge was used to design HAARP, we know that :
Matthew 12:36 But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment. Matthew 12:37 For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.
Sure sounds like string theory…..if those words never go away……
————————————————————————————————————————————————
I am a Christian who happens to believe that Quantum Mechanics offers the real opportunity to enter a doorway to explanations into Creation and how God can declare the end from the beginning, and beginning from the end. With QM there’s the real possibility to bring dimensions into focus. QM has done more to unifying Science and God than religion alone.
Whether people believe they were inspired or not, the writings in the Zohar are strikingly similar to to some of the applications being “theoretically” postulated with QM. String theory, the graviton particle that keeps eluding them will ultimately converge.
Report Post »ishka4me
Posted on June 21, 2011 at 1:46amwe see dogs every day of all kinds, little ones, big ones, furs change or were bred for qualities desired.we can have toy poodle and a pit bull mate, and the product will always be a dog. this is called animal husbandry (sorry Alabama) in nature animals breed with others on characteristics that aid in survival why for instance a white tail deer in Florida is much smaller then white tale deer in maine. This is called natural selection. For evolution to occur, our dogs mentioned before should be growing wings or antlers. there should be some evidence of some animal changing into something else. I am sorry the beak size of swallows in the Galapagos is not evolution, the ones with beaks that better survival pass on the genes, this is natural selection. These anti God people will say we share dna with chimps, but they leave out that we share dna more with horses. Miracles happen, are witnessed. read the Bible.
Report Post »WeDontNeedNoStinkingBadges
Posted on June 21, 2011 at 1:53am“Can Creationism and Science Co-Exist?”
Wrong question. The actual question is:
“Can Evolution and Science Co-Exist?”
The answer is … YES … however, everything done under “evolution” won’t work. Sorry.
Report Post »thinkinghuman
Posted on June 21, 2011 at 3:24amI have a perfect knowledge that the idea that we descended from apes is NONSENSE.
Report Post »thinkinghuman
Posted on June 21, 2011 at 3:26amEvolution is FLAT OUT incompatible with the Adam and Eve, first parents, account in the Bible, which is the true account. The idea that we descended from chimps or apes, whatever, is nonsense to me, primarily because there are NO inbetweeners, or in other words, we cannot see the ape/man combo which is also in transition. We only see the pure species of man and apes, which God created, OBVIOUSLY.
Report Post »roguetea
Posted on June 21, 2011 at 3:35amrogue, The Eternal Absolute
Discussions like this one demonstrate the worth of this site and Beck’s wisdom for making it happen. Thanks for the many heartfelt, intelligent thoughts. I am strong on the theology side though I have always seriously investigated science. For decades, I have crossed paths with many scientists who are also faith-filled Christians. Faith and knowledge always have been highly compatible. Ultimately, we all reduce to faith based on partial knowledge, if intellectual honesty prevails.
To a few who have trouble with God and revealed faith: If your computer’s ram is the sum total of all knowledge, all science, how many bits or bytes (relatively speaking) represents your intelligence. Let us be generous and say you are a traditional sector, 256 bytes, out of giga rams, many times greater than my estimation of myself. Based on such a small portion of the whole, is it wise to categorically say there is no God, no revealed faith? Or is it foolish to be absolutely negative about the Absolute Positive, relatively speaking? Does the vastness of knowledge that whirls together harmoniously enough to keep our world, simply beg for the Omniscience?
Report Post »tea party, Own 2011, ROGUE ON
Sinista MACE
Posted on June 21, 2011 at 8:07amNothing exists except God. Everything is a figment of his imagination, a hologram. He is not tangible. He technically doesn’t exist in material form. He exists in spirit form (it’s hard to say a spirit “exists”, because by definition, he does not exist). To be or not tobe, that is the question.
The spirit World is the Yin world. The material world is the Yang world.
The fastest way to the spirit world (Heaven) is death. When you die, your consciousness goes through the black hole (in other words, the electricity of your brain goes to the ground) back to the original source.
Jesus Christ has the technology to open black holes and traverse back and forth to Heaven without dying. In order to traverse a black hole physically without dying, it has to be widened and sustained so it doesn’t squish you into a singularity (this is hard, but not impossible). This problem is solved by digitizing you, allowing you to traverse as information (this is a bit easier, but also not impossible).
The Black Hole is the Narrow Gate.
“Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it.” – Matthew 7:13
Creationism and Science are not mutually exclusive.
Report Post »encinom
Posted on June 21, 2011 at 10:42amtower7femacamp
Report Post »Posted on June 20, 2011 at 10:19pm
All of us, who have chosen the path of thinking things through invariably come to the charge of being, “conspiracy theorists”. The slurs are well known and well honed; “Tin hat conspiracy nut”, “Paranoid daydreamers”, “barking moon-bat crazy”, and variations on this theme.
___________________________________
You are called tin foil hat wearers or paranooid conspiracy nuts, because you have allowed snake oil sales men like Alex Jones and the rest of his scam artists to do the thinking for you. You feast on the garbage he and his kind spew.
JRook
Posted on June 21, 2011 at 11:52amFor the reasonably intelligent and educated they do. And creationism and evolution can even coexist, so long as the individual does not limit their notion of a higher power or force in the universe to stories and religious dogma created by mankind to explain something that is far beyond our comprehension.
Report Post »V-MAN MACE
Posted on June 21, 2011 at 11:59amencinom
Idiots like you call Alex Jones a conspiracy theorist and extremist because he tells the truth.
You can’t debunk what he says. Makes you look and sound stupid.
Most people don’t trust the lying government anymore, and those who do are a MINORITY.
You are marginalizing yourself.
Report Post »Susan09
Posted on June 21, 2011 at 4:25pmJust One Thing to say . Without The OLD Would there Be HEBREW JEWISH, EGYPTIAN ARAABIAN, A ROMAN, A SYRIAN, AFRICAN, A BAPTIST , A SCIENTIST, A DR, A CHRISTIAN, SOLDIER, A CROSS a TOMB THAT IS EMPTY IN JERUSALEM, ISRAEL TODAY?
Report Post »Scruff
Posted on June 21, 2011 at 5:35pm@NOTYERHUCKLEBERRY
Can’t have it your way – Ezekiel 28 notes that Lucifer was in the Garden of Eden before his fall, and God said when it was created that ‘it was good’; so Lucifer fell after the garden was created (no sooner than Day 6).
God’s purpose in Scripture is to communicate to us, not give us puzzles to solve. In very straightforward language: “and the evening and the morning were the (fill in the blank, 1st – 6th) day” makes it clear that God (through Moses) was interested in communicating about 24 hour periods. If it had been otherwise, He would have used different words.
Report Post »GadsdenPatriot
Posted on June 22, 2011 at 12:33amScience has become hijacked by atheists and Soros. Science will ultimately verify God’s existence.
Report Post »Mgindi26
Posted on June 22, 2011 at 11:22amI didn’t need this video tobelieve in G-D but for those who might like to see science and religon coexist, please watch this video using science to prove G-D. by an MIT professor. It really is enlghtening.
Report Post »http://www.youtube.com/user/simpletoremember?feature=chclk#p/u/3/LzetqYev_AI
GreyEyedGirl
Posted on June 27, 2011 at 11:19amOh, I’m sorry Underoath! Were you there at the beginning of creation?? NO. Call it your opinion not the way it is. The way it is that God is outside of Time so who are you to say how long one of the days of Creation were??? Think a little.
Report Post »