Young Earth Creationism

[IamsSon]

You can learn and discover from science. Theres no god needed for that. Science thinks outside the box, thats how it got away from god.

There are scientists who believe in God, and do perfectly good science. There is no need to eliminate God in order to practice science.

[questionmark]

There are scientists who believe in God, and do perfectly good science. There is no need to eliminate God in order to practice science.

I fail to see anybody (authoritative) who has ever claimed that. On the other side I have seen lots of solid science dissed by some because it did not agree with the naysayer's believe in God (which may or might not have any bearing on the existence of such a being).

[Agent. Mulder]

There are scientists who believe in God, and do perfectly good science. There is no need to eliminate God in order to practice science.

No one said it was. One of my favorite biologists believes in god. Ken Miller.

Im saying a god isnt needed, the way saucy thinks it is. But, belief in god has nothing to do with science. Its like saying since you worship your desk lamp, that helps you with science. Theyre not related. Mixing the two doesnt add to anything really. Only one gives real answers.

[+Sherapy]

You don't see evidence for god because you don't accept the reality of a god. I see everything around me as evidence of God's power and creativity.

You apparently didn't even have time to read the quote because this does not address what it was saying at all.

What reality Joe, your subjective reality ?

Your personal perspective on nature is meaningless in the context of a science debate.

Emma is saying she can understand how some belief in g-d and science, but it isn't necessary.

You have countered because of a belief in g-d, one can learn more about science.

That's not true.

Edited October 22, 2010 by Sherizzle

[FurthurBB]

I fully believe In a creator, If you do your research it will be made clear to you....I love to ask any evolutionist or a so called scientist what caused the so called big bang, That question seems to cause crickets.

Not knowing everything has nothing to do with whether there is a god or not. Is your god just a god of gaps in knowledge? How lame.

[FurthurBB]

Based on your last comment, one would assume there are no scientists who are believers, but there are plenty of scientists who believe in God. Why would that be? Maybe because knowing God did it doesn't mean we can't learn quite a bit from His handiwork. We might still be able to learn how He did it, or how one area of His creation supports another, or how to improve our technology by understanding how nature works. Your post is more of an ad hominem attack than anything else.

Do you really believe that there is anyone with an advanced degree that believes in a god that is just the god of gaps? I would bet there is not.

[Beckys_Mom]

There are scientists who believe in God, and do perfectly good science. There is no need to eliminate God in order to practice science.

So very true

Which is why so many great scientists do not out rule god.... they only focus on the science

I still think god is the biggest scientist of them all...we all are part ( tiny part) of gods own experiment....

[IamsSon]

No one said it was. One of my favorite biologists believes in god. Ken Miller.

Im saying a god isnt needed, the way saucy thinks it is. But, belief in god has nothing to do with science. Its like saying since you worship your desk lamp, that helps you with science. Theyre not related. Mixing the two doesnt add to anything really. Only one gives real answers.

Thanks for sharing your opinion.

[IamsSon]

Do you really believe that there is anyone with an advanced degree that believes in a god that is just the god of gaps? I would bet there is not.

Who said anything about a god of the gaps?

[Copasetic]

There are scientists who believe in God, and do perfectly good science. There is no need to eliminate God in order to practice science.

That's true, one only needs to suspend their beliefs/disbeliefs to practice science. Once you go home at the end of the day, you're free to carry on believing whatever you want.....

[Beckys_Mom]

I don't have to pick sides. I'm still "on the fence" about my faith and beliefs. As I stated in other threads, I'm on a learning curve. I don't claim to know everything when I think I know something and I'm proven wrong by much brighter people than I on this forum, then it helps me to learn. I don't like spouting out "medieval" evidence, but that's all I know at the moment. I've been "taught" certain things, things which obviously isn't true, or at least, was thought to be true a long time ago.

People don't like to mix science and God together, but I do. I love discovery. I love learning. I try to think outside the box, but I am also humble enough to admit that I don't know a lot of things.

BRAVO...I like your way of thinking

We can choose both..god and science... there is no laws that say - you can't pick the two

As a believer in god...I beleive we are part of his experiment....I cannot explain what it all is... but I think his idea is to see how life evolved and see how long it takes for mankind to work it all out............Darwin stepped up to the plate ..with the help of Wallace.....and later evolution went from theory to fact <-- just one example

So whats left? well man is trying to figure out - just what caused the big bang?? will science get the answer?? well who knows, after all we didn't think that science could prove many things...or even find cures....and take a look at technology....it has come a long way..........so I think yes maybe one day science will have it worked out <-- all part of gods experiment

If you have a brain...open it to all kinds... don't close it to the 1st simple answer given... work on it....thats what it's for

[Stellar]

I fully believe In a creator, If you do your research it will be made clear to you....I love to ask any evolutionist or a so called scientist what caused the so called big bang, That question seems to cause crickets.

Really? Because that question has come up on this forum alone quite often, and has been met with many answers from "so called scientists". Perhaps the reason you are hearing crickets is because you pose the question, and subsequently ignore the answers?

[questionmark]

Really? Because that question has come up on this forum alone quite often, and has been met with many answers from "so called scientists". Perhaps the reason you are hearing crickets is because you pose the question, and subsequently ignore the answers?

it should say: " ... the answers you don't like"

[Archangel Oger]

Really? Because that question has come up on this forum alone quite often, and has been met with many answers from "so called scientists". Perhaps the reason you are hearing crickets is because you pose the question, and subsequently ignore the answers?

Really?...Would you care to take the time to point me to those answers? Would enjoy reading them with a open mind, I have yet to hear or read a valid response or answer. Do you have one of your own you would care to share?. Oh and for a few other posters in this thread Science is a good thing BUT not when the humans use it to turn away from the creator.

[Agent. Mulder]

Thanks for sharing your opinion.

Just stating the facts bud.

[Agent. Mulder]

Really?...Would you care to take the time to point me to those answers? Would enjoy reading them with a open mind, I have yet to hear or read a valid response or answer. Do you have one of your own you would care to share?. Oh and for a few other posters in this thread Science is a good thing BUT not when the humans use it to turn away from the creator.

You mean when they use it to turn away from a creator, towards logic?

[Archangel Oger]

You mean when they use it to turn away from a creator, towards logic?

Answerless Logic? Do you have a answer for the question I asked?

[Beckys_Mom]

Really?...Would you care to take the time to point me to those answers? Would enjoy reading them with a open mind, I have yet to hear or read a valid response or answer. Do you have one of your own you would care to share?. Oh and for a few other posters in this thread Science is a good thing BUT not when the humans use it to turn away from the creator.

Cobblers......science does not go al out to take it all away from god... disproving god is not their agenda.....if you think it is..well pity

I fully believe in god..but I do not ignore facts... and if you bothered to read much of this thread, you would see why

[Jor-el]

This is incorrect. There are actually only about 500 genes shared across life. Most of those genes code for enzymes and proteins which deal with energy production--Like glycolytic pathways, and genes which code for "deciphering" hereditary material.

And how many code for eyes, or how many code for any part of the physical body of any living organism?

Are you telling me that the genes that code for eyes, for example are not all similar across the spexctrum of all organisms that share this feature?

My statement was not only in connection with life, but with the entire genetic map of a human being. The closser the physical features between organisms like a human and a Gorilla for example are in the high 90 percentile becasuse they do share similar features, what I'm getting at, which I'm sure you disagree with, is that they don't have to necessarily share a common ancestor for this to happen. There are other adequate explanations which can explain this.

When functions are shared between living organisms that share a high degree of common function, like a body part or even a liver, the genes will inevitably all be similar as well.

As such one can state that depending on the function we have common genes within all species that will function in exactly the same way with a minimum of variation.

Yes we do so for a simple fact you have over looked. Why is it that you "share" more genes (or better alleles) with your Mom than with your cousin? Why is it that you share more genes with your cousin than with me? Why is it that you likely share more genes with me than with a South American Pygmy? Why is it that you share more genes with a South American Pygmy than with a chimpanzee? Why is it that you share more genes with a Chimpanzee than with Gorilla? Why is it that you share more genes with a Gorilla than with a shark? Why do you share more genes with a Shark than with Oak tree? Why do you share more genes with an Oak than with Escherichia coli?

Just as my genes and yours are rather close to 100% identical as well, I may share similarities of a 0.0001% with family members, the rest are identical to yours and any other member of the human race.

[Stellar]

Really?...Would you care to take the time to point me to those answers?

Sure. The notion of "dimensionality" is applicable within our universe, but we are unsure of whether they apply in the same way outside of the universe. Time, as a dimension, would then possibly be meaningless "before" the creation of the universe, and hence there is no "before" the big bang. That is one possibility.

Another possibility is that there existed a sort of "superforce" outside of the universe which is independent of time (if time indeed did apply before the big bang) which caused the expansion of the universe.

When it comes down to it, we currently do not have the technology and knowledge to make a determination. We simply have hypotheses as to what it may have been, and many scientists are trying to devise a model (come up with a theory) to explain just that, and along side, trying to devise experiments which could support/refute their model. We dont know for certain what was 'before' the big bang, if there really even was a 'before', but we do know that there was a big bang.

[Beckys_Mom]

Sure. The notion of "dimensionality" is applicable within our universe, but we are unsure of whether they apply in the same way outside of the universe. Time, as a dimension, would then possibly be meaningless "before" the creation of the universe, and hence there is no "before" the big bang. That is one possibility.

Another possibility is that there existed a sort of "superforce" outside of the universe which is independent of time (if time indeed did apply before the big bang) which caused the expansion of the universe.

When it comes down to it, we currently do not have the technology and knowledge to make a determination. We simply have hypotheses as to what it may have been, and many scientists are trying to devise a model (come up with a theory) to explain just that, and along side, trying to devise experiments which could support/refute their model. We dont know for certain what was 'before' the big bang, if there really even was a 'before', but we do know that there was a big bang.

Talk about getting straight to the point... you nailed it ...

[questionmark]

We dont know for certain what was 'before' the big bang, if there really even was a 'before', but we do know that there was a big bang.

And can confidently say that if there is a creator he had no hand in all this after that Big Bang. All too linear and calculable to have had any exterior influence.

[Stellar]

Answerless Logic? Do you have a answer for the question I asked?

What use is an answer that can not be tested or verified? Furthermore, what would then be logical about this answer?

It isnt logical to come up with an answer that you can not determine to be factual. Its only logical to admit that you dont have an answer, but you're seeking one.

[Archangel Oger]

Sure. The notion of "dimensionality" is applicable within our universe, but we are unsure of whether they apply in the same way outside of the universe. Time, as a dimension, would then possibly be meaningless "before" the creation of the universe, and hence there is no "before" the big bang. That is one possibility.

Another possibility is that there existed a sort of "superforce" outside of the universe which is independent of time (if time indeed did apply before the big bang) which caused the expansion of the universe.

When it comes down to it, we currently do not have the technology and knowledge to make a determination. We simply have hypotheses as to what it may have been, and many scientists are trying to devise a model (come up with a theory) to explain just that, and along side, trying to devise experiments which could support/refute their model. We dont know for certain what was 'before' the big bang, if there really even was a 'before', but we do know that there was a big bang.

"Another possibility is that there existed a sort of "superforce" outside of the universe which is independent of time"...

That statement alone clearly points to a creator and as for reading the rest of your post science has no solid answer for what caused the big bang or at least you never put forth one, As far as time goes it does not exist outside of this earthbound realm.

[Beckys_Mom]

"Another possibility is that there existed a sort of "superforce" outside of the universe which is independent of time"...

That statement alone clearly points to a creator and as for reading the rest of your post science has no solid answer for what caused the big bang or at least you never put forth one, As far as time goes it does not exist outside of this earthbound realm.

As you just pointed out - a possibility... doesn't exactly mean there is one... <-- but that is just based on ones faith in god....