A new religion, IF THERE WAS A GOD:

Originally posted by RJHinds
In the Science Forum, I was trying to point out that the theory of evolution was not science. I was pointing out that the theory of creation made more sense and has more scientific evidence for it being true than the fairy tale of evolution.

Creation is a supernatural miracle of God and does not qualify under the humanistic definition of science. Howeve ...[text shortened]... the students might start thinking for themselves instead of believing the evolution propaganda.

In the Science Forum, I was trying to point out that the theory of evolution was not science. I was pointing out that the theory of creation made more sense and has more scientific evidence for it being true than the fairy tale of evolution.

This is a fundamentally flawed statement. There is no scientific evidence for the creation stories. There is a complete absence of scientific evidence for a world wide flood. There is barely any historical evidence for the Exodus story. The only evidence for these things comes from the Bible. While you may regard received wisdom as a pre-eminent form of evidence - it is not scientific evidence. Science relies on empirical data, so a scientific fact must have some hard evidence from more than one source.

You are entirely within your rights to reject scientific theories on the basis of your belief in the literal truth of the bible, but you are making a basic logical mistake if you believe that your statements are based on science in any way. By all means believe in received wisdom rather than scientific method, but don't confuse the two.

Originally posted by vivify
What you're describing is a being with intelligence enough to ponder concepts like mechanisms of evolution. The only other beings like that (that we know of) are humans. That said, why wouldn't such a being be more concerned with the only creatures capable of that type thought, which by your description, is the same type of the thought displayed by the deity?

Perhaps it is a being of reasonable intellectual power but one feeble in its ability to affect the universe in a physical sense. Perhaps it took an immeasurable length of time for it (in whatever dimension(s) it resides) for it to set up the universe and the mechanisms that operate within; and having seen evolution play out perhaps it has more admiration for the strength and speed of tigers, or the deception of chameleons, and so on ... than it admires similarly feeble beings whose only saving graces are their intelligence.

Originally posted by DeepThought

In the Science Forum, I was trying to point out that the theory of evolution was not science. I was pointing out that the theory of creation made more sense and has more scientific evidence for it being true than the fairy tale of evolution.

This is a fundamentally flawed statement. There is no scientific evidence for the creation ...[text shortened]... y all means believe in received wisdom rather than scientific method, but don't confuse the two.

You misunderstand me. I know that creation can not be proven by humanistic science methods. I stated the creation was a miracle. Didn't you read that?

However, the book of Genesis says animals reproduce after their own kind. That is exactly what the science evidence shows. You never observe an animal evolving into another kind of animal, like the theory of evolution claims. That is only one piece of scientific evidence that supports creation over evolution.

The story of the worldwide flood is historical and the geological evidence supports such a catastropy. Catastrophies have been observed and is scientific evidence that would support a worldwide flood. No one has ever observed the slow build up of sedimentary layers or the slow carving of deep canyons over millions and billions of years like the evolutions claim. But we have seen a little grand canyon with a lot of sedimentary layers form after the eruption of Mount St. Helens in 1980.

Originally posted by Agerg
Perhaps it is a being of reasonable intellectual power but one feeble in its ability to affect the universe in a physical sense. Perhaps it took an immeasurable length of time for it (in whatever dimension(s) it resides) for it to set up the universe and the mechanisms that operate within; and having seen evolution play out perhaps it has more admiration for t ...[text shortened]... on ... than it admires similarly feeble beings whose only saving graces are their intelligence.

Not according to the OP, which describes a good that's taken the time to write a bible with positive uplifting things for humans to read.

Originally posted by vivify
Not according to the OP, which describes a good that's taken the time to write a bible with positive uplifting things for humans to read.

But we are free to reject that such a statement (as twhitehead did) ought to be in any Bible that refers to some specific existent god or gods

Originally posted by vivify
What you're describing is a being with intelligence enough to ponder concepts like mechanisms of evolution. The only other beings like that (that we know of) are humans. That said, why wouldn't such a being be more concerned with the only creatures capable of that type thought, which by your description, is the same type of the thought displayed by the deity?

Again, I think that is your ego talking. Why do you think that a God that can think necessarily will think like you and share your interests? Surely a God that can create a whole universe, will not be too impressed by evolution. He might be more interested in dark matter or how galaxies collide over a billion years.

Originally posted by vivify
I apologize.

Apology accepted.

Originally posted by RJHinds
You misunderstand me. I know that creation can not be proven by humanistic science methods. I stated the creation was a miracle. Didn't you read that?

However, the book of Genesis says animals reproduce after their own kind. That is exactly what the science evidence shows. You never observe an animal evolving into another kind of animal, like the the ...[text shortened]... and canyon with a lot of sedimentary layers form after the eruption of Mount St. Helens in 1980.

You never observe an animal evolving into another kind of animal, like the theory of evolution claims.

Speciation has been observed in a laboratory setting in drosophila.

Originally posted by Suzianne
Get serious. Your premise is flawed.

If there was a god EXACTLY like you describe, you'd then be in here exclaiming how ridiculous it is to believe in THAT god.

Since religion has been banned from the Science forum on the basis of "ignorance", I wonder if atheism can be banned from the Spirituality forum on the basis of "ignorance".

Nah, probably not. The bitching and wailing would be too much to bear.

Where did atheism come into this? Was there some subtle clue I was talking about atheism as some kind of code like the creationists did when they switched their scheme to 'intelligent design'?

The fact that there is the world wide flood tale in your bible is pretty clear evidence that the whole thing is made up by men.

The very concept that seems so easily accepted is that humans are somehow 'above' animals and so in that story it is ok for every land animals except for a very few who would guarantee a major loss of genetic diversity, all of which a real god would certainly know in advance, it just says the ones who wrote that sickening tale could care less about the fate of mere animals since it was self obvious humans are the crown of creation.

And you can't even see it. That is the sad part, that you are also taken in by this abhorrent sickening tale and treat it as if it really happened.

That is one thing I am ABSOLUTELY sure a real god would never allow to happen, kill ALL the land animals to get at a few nasty humans, especially since this god capable of calling in to being an entire universe would have zero problems just waving its rhetorical hands and go poof, off with you bad humans, you REALLY tick me off.

And because of the huge ego trip involved, billions of people have no trouble identifying with that story since they are clearly so far above animals a god would save them at the expense of literally trillions of intelligent beings who happen to be lions and tigers and elephants and such.

That is a strident charge against humanity that they could come up with such a horrible tale in the first place.

I will say to my dying breath a real god would NEVER do such a dastardly thing.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Again, I think that is your ego talking. Why do you think that a God that can think necessarily will think like you and share your interests? Surely a God that can create a whole universe, will not be too impressed by evolution. He might be more interested in dark matter or how galaxies collide over a billion years.

The only example we have as far as what a thinking being, capable of understanding evolution and dark matter would be interested in, are humans. And since humans have a fascination with sentient beings apart from themselves (pets, zoos, zoologists, scientists searching for life elsewhere in the universe), even though there are sentient beings all around us, there's no reason to think that a deity wouldn't also be interested in sentient beings, which also seem rare in the universe.

Originally posted by vivify
The only example we have to go by as far as what a thinking being capable of understanding evolution and dark matter would be interested in, are humans.

But clearly not all humans as demonstrated by RJ.

And since humans have a fascination with sentient beings apart from themselves (pets, zoos, zoologists, scientists searching for life elsewhere in the universe), even though there are sentient beings all around us, there's no reason to think that a deity wouldn't also be interested in sentient beings,
Nor is it a particularly strong reason to think that they would. An example of one, is simply not a very good statistic to be extrapolating from.

...which also seem rare in the universe.
That seems somewhat premature. How far did you look? There are approximately 100 billion stars in each of 100 billion galaxies, and each star has an average of maybe 5 planets and you have looked carefully at one planet next to one star and glanced at a few other planets around that same star. Add to this the 14 billion years or so that have elapsed prior to this point in time, and the many more billions of years to follow.
Now since you are so good at extrapolating from examples of 1, then surely we should conclude that most other star systems will be like ours and also have sentient life?

Originally posted by DeepThought

You never observe an animal evolving into another kind of animal, like the theory of evolution claims.

Speciation has been observed in a laboratory setting in drosophila.

Evolutionists giving it a fancy name doesn't mean it evolved into a different kind. It is still a fly. God has done better than that when He programmed the caterpillar to change into a butterfly.

YouTube

Originally posted by twhitehead
But clearly not all humans as demonstrated by RJ.

[b]And since humans have a fascination with sentient beings apart from themselves (pets, zoos, zoologists, scientists searching for life elsewhere in the universe), even though there are sentient beings all around us, there's no reason to think that a deity wouldn't also be interested in sentient beings ...[text shortened]... y we should conclude that most other star systems will be like ours and also have sentient life?

Of course not every human. But don't you agree that most scientific minds are very interested in finding new forms of life, both on earth and elsewhere? And that's in addition to the large number of pet owners, animal rights activists, people who pay to watch animals in zoos, aquariums, circus shows, rodeos, matadors, race horses, etc., in addition to members of religions that teach all living things are precious.

Regarding a deity and life, humans (and other organisms) provide evidence that intelligent beings interested are overwhelmingly interested in studying lifeforms. Thus, we have evidence to support that an intelligent deity would as well. However, no evidence exists to the contrary.

Regarding life existing because of odds: not only have no signs of life been found anywhere outside of earth, but very few places have been found where life as we know out is even possible. This makes the idea of life existing because of odds much less significant. Considering all this, it would make studying living creatures on earth all the more enticing to an intelligent deity.

Originally posted by vivify
Of course not every human. But don't you agree that most scientific minds are very interested in finding new forms of life, both on earth and elsewhere? And that's in addition to the large number of pet owners, animal rights activists, people who pay to watch animals in zoos, aquariums, circus shows, rodeos, matadors, race horses, etc., in addition to m ...[text shortened]... it would make studying living creatures on earth all the more enticing to an intelligent deity.

Scientist should be investigating the life forms on earth and seeking full understanding here before searching for life where we are not likely to find any.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Scientist should be investigating the life forms on earth and seeking full understanding here before searching for life where we are not likely to find any.

Why insist on that ordering? This really is beyond the scope of this forum, but there is no reason for astronomers not to look for life elsewhere. An oxygen signature from an exoplanet would be very strong evidence for life outside the solar system. If life were found on an exoplanet there would be no way for us to exploit it, but I don't think it would change any Biblical interpretations that weren't smashed apart with the end of Geocentrism. Within the solar system probes to Mars can and are checking for evidence of life, even if extinct. For one thing there may be oil, which would be a very good reason for checking for it.