BABY J....we really need to get a UFO, E.T. thread going...that could be pretty fun hearing what people think.

Quote Originally Posted by BABY J
^^ I assume that you have proof of God then... yes?
I have an abundance of evidence that makes it logical for me to believe. But the very nature of a transcendent God means that our methods of proof will not be able to define or articulate his existence.

It is impossible to prove God. Not because there is no evidence, but because most people who believe in God believes that he is responsible for creation, and the atheistic and some scientific minds ould not accept anything that is subject (created by or under the rules of) to the thing to be proven to be used as proof of that things existence.

For instance, they say you can't use the Bible because it is defined by believers to be the word of God therefore it cannot be used. But if you believe God created all things then nothing serves as sufficient proof to the mind that refuses to objectively ask questions about the evidence prevented. Mostly because everything can be tied back to the Bible because it gives God credit for creating ALL things.

And to finish, this same point goes both ways. Science does not disprove the existence of God. In fact, the inability of scientists to account for our cosmological laws, the universally applicable tool of logic as we see it in living things and in our universe is not accounted for.

Example: science cannot give reason as to why we can look at the universe and reasonably know that there is order and that certain types of matter respond and act certain ways. A lawless universe does not allow for such deduction and without the ability to do so, there is no grounds for scientific observation and theory because the rules of observation would be non-existent based on a totally chaotic and non-specified universe.


But those of you who think evolution disproves God are sorely mistaken. The Biblical account says that God created man from dirt(the dust of the earth). That is the only detail that we have. That God created life from non-life. The origins of the evolution theory are now finding themselves having to answer the question what was the first thing. We know it wasn't lightning mixed with the perfect cellular cocktail. We could assume a comet, but that still does not account for original life in our universe. So what are they looking at now? Abiogenesis. Abiogenesis is the theory that life can come from non life. This is the idea of some evolutionists, but it actually will make the theists argument stronger, because that is the ONLY criteria that was given in the bible. And not only was it stated in the Bible, but the validity of such statement is solid when at the time that was written there would have been no way on earth that men would have been able to imagine and understand or conceptualize saying that life came from non life. There was nothing that would have demonstrated that to them yet they wrote it down in all of its original nonsense, but now we are investigating its probability.

This will be interesting to see how this argument plays out in future debates.


When every1 learns that we are arguing OPINIONS then they will accept some1 else's view a lot better. ...
True, although some of us bring decent reason and rationale to our beliefs and some of us are just saying what we heard our pastor or some guy on TV say without really investigating into any of their claims.

Religious zealots are not afforded that, b/c in their mind they have arrived at the absolute... and that's a slick slope IMO.
That is not necessarily true. Some staunch religious people are willing to apply developing knowledge and understanding into their beliefs. I think the clash is that some people think that some of these things should serve to disprove the beliefs of the religious person, when it is almost impossible because their world view dictates that they believe already. therefore all of their interpretation of new scientific discovery will be reflected through that scope. And I think its obvious that I don't believe the Bible gives many scientific specifics that we have to argue with and this belief affords me the same opportunity that you have. It would be a different story if the Bible were a scientific book and it had data that would could really test and understand. But because it doesnt I can have my own personal thought on how something happened, but I also am flexible enough to know that those things are mostly assumptions coming from my limited understanding of the world, history, and God. I guess it is my scientific approach to understanding God, while my spiritual approach to believing in Him and knowing him rests in the character demonstrated in the Bible.

But I can't put my eggs in the science basket when it is obviously a developmental institution. It will always change, and it will never know all things because there will always be questions.

This post of yours contradicts your previous post... because your first said that the evolution theory has yet to be proven and that it is only a theory, yet in this one you say that there is a "study" of life in ice caves, glaciers or whatever you want to call em, but that's proof enough of organisms evolving and adapting to that harsh environment. you asked what our school's are teaching kids these days -- well, just look back in history and take a look at the accomplishments atheists and other anti-religion people made and you tell me.
umm no... organisms do not evolve to live in the arctic, they adapt. Much like you would if you moved to the pole tomorrow. Or much like we all do as the seasons change. We adapt. Also I don't know what research he is talking about but he specifically said, "nothing could have evolved because of the climate".

Lastly with your last sentence I am not sure if you are about the science and what it states or if you are about the atheists or anti-religion message. People like Richard Dawkins have surely clouded this relationship, but to say it easily, you can believe in evolution and be into science and still be a believer or involved in religion. There is nothing about science that says that religion is wrong, or that you should be a scientists and not a religious person. In fact science has its foundations based on faith that we will eventually have the ability to understand our world in much greater detail. There is faith invovled in the scientific process. Even Richard Dawkins said that men are wired to have faith in something.

I just don't get down with mixing science with rhetoric because that ignores the fact that science is neutral in this discussion. It does not prove definitively one way or the other. I am not sure if it ever will.