Even science believes in creation.

Originally posted by twhitehead
What is your faith based on? Random guess work? Your hearts desire? If not some sort of evidence then how can you claim to be even partly right.
If your faith is based on evidence then you are back in the evidence boat.

What I said was, "Those who rely entirely on evidence (without faith) are just as wrong as those who rely entirely on faith (without evidence)."

Evidence and faith are two sides to one coin. To have the truth is to have both sides.

One can believe that God created the universe and still believe in the Big Bang.

As I said before, "Science is the how, Religion is the why."

You need both to comprehend the full truth.

Originally posted by twhitehead
What is your faith based on? Random guess work? Your hearts desire? If not some sort of evidence then how can you claim to be even partly right.
If your faith is based on evidence then you are back in the evidence boat.

I don't have any problems that Suzianne, and any other christian or creationist believes in. I don't like them trying to redefine the consept of 'science' to fit their need.

Science says nothing about god. Science neither says that god exists or doesn't exist. It's just not within the domain of science.

So I give Suzianne the right to believe that god exists, I don't mind that. If that is her religious belief, then so be it. But it isn't science.

Originally posted by jaywill
I also know that science updates itself. There were always nine planets in the solar system as far back as I can remember. Now the science says that there are eight planets in the solar system.

This is not to gloat. This is simply to realize that scientific pronouncements will change, altar, be discarded and updated.

I think the basic problem is that you don't bother to understand science. For example, your comment about the number of planets in the solar system is not and example of science updating itself or having different findings or opinions. It is about a change in the naming conventions, nothing more, nothing less. Sciences opinion on the number of bodies orbiting the sun has not changed one iota as a result of this change in naming convention.

Some recent theories of ancient catatrophies seem to confirm my understanding of early earth history from a biblical standpoint.
Well I am sorry to inform you that they do not confirm your understanding one bit. Learn a bit more science and you will see why.

Originally posted by Suzianne
What is your evidence that there is no God based on?

What is my evidence based on, or what is my evidence? Actually it is an absence of evidence.
My evidence that a god matching your description of God is based on the fact that it is internally inconsistent and inconsistent with what we see around us.

Originally posted by Suzianne
As I said before, "Science is the how, Religion is the why."

You need both to comprehend the full truth.

How do you 'comprehend' the why without any evidence? Without any reason? Do you just guess? Does it just pop into your head one day? Do you get it from someone else whose authority you don't trust? Why do you separate it from evidence based science?

Originally posted by twhitehead
What is my evidence based on, or what is my evidence? Actually it is an absence of evidence.
My evidence that a god matching your description of God is based on the fact that it is internally inconsistent and inconsistent with what we see around us.

And that, my friend, is why you need faith. 🙂

Originally posted by twhitehead
How do you 'comprehend' the why without any evidence? Without any reason? Do you just guess? Does it just pop into your head one day? Do you get it from someone else whose authority you don't trust? Why do you separate it from evidence based science?

We were all told in the Holy Bible. You know, the Word of God?

Obviously the Bible, God, Jesus, all of it, is not science. I've explained in this thread numerous times why there can be no proof (evidence) of God. It requires Faith to know.

Also, those who proclaim that the Bible contains everything one needs to know aren't getting the full picture either. They deny science, which has loads of evidence to back it up.

Thus my statement, "Those who rely entirely on evidence are just as wrong as those who rely entirely on faith." The atheists are just as wrong as the young earth creationists.

Originally posted by Suzianne
And that, my friend, is why you need faith. 🙂

You 'need' faith? Why?

Originally posted by Suzianne
Obviously the Bible, God, Jesus, all of it, is not science. I've explained in this thread numerous times why there can be no proof (evidence) of God. It requires Faith to know.

But I don't understand where your faith starts from, or how it differs from the Faith of those who know that the Quran is the word of God.
You assure us that it is not based on evidence. So how does it start? Random guesswork? You cant say 'the Bible' because you admit that your faith comes first, your faith in the Bible as an authority did not come from the Bible and an authority. Where did it come from?

Originally posted by Suzianne
We were all told in the Holy Bible. You know, the Word of God?

Obviously the Bible, God, Jesus, all of it, is not science. I've explained in this thread numerous times why there can be no proof (evidence) of God. It requires Faith to know.

Also, those who proclaim that the Bible contains everything one needs to know aren't getting the full picture ...[text shortened]... ho rely entirely on faith." The atheists are just as wrong as the young earth creationists.

Are you taking the name of YEC in vain?

Originally posted by twhitehead
But I don't understand where your faith starts from, or how it differs from the Faith of those who know that the Quran is the word of God.
You assure us that it is not based on evidence. So how does it start? Random guesswork? You cant say 'the Bible' because you admit that your faith comes first, your faith in the Bible as an authority did not come from the Bible and an authority. Where did it come from?

If you had ever really studied the Holy Bible you would understand faith
much better. Do some research for yourself. That is the only way you
are going to gain faith yourself.

Originally posted by RJHinds
If you had ever really studied the Holy Bible you would understand faith
much better. Do some research for yourself. That is the only way you
are going to gain faith yourself.

And you, RJHinds, if you had ever really studied science you would understand evolution
much better. Do some research for yourself. That is the only way you are going to gain real knowledge yourself.

Originally posted by RJHinds
If you had ever really studied the Holy Bible you would understand faith
much better. Do some research for yourself. That is the only way you
are going to gain faith yourself.

I haven't studied the bible, nor do I wish to, nor do I wish to gain faith. It sounds like a remarkably stupid concept to me. Why anyone would want to willingly delude themselves like that is beyond me.

Originally posted by Suzianne
What I said was, "Those who rely entirely on evidence (without faith) are just as wrong as those who rely entirely on faith (without evidence)."

Evidence and faith are two sides to one coin. To have the truth is to have both sides.

One can believe that God created the universe and still believe in the Big Bang.

As I said before, "Science is the how, Religion is the why."

You need both to comprehend the full truth.

Yes... but I still think in the end you need science to back up your religious claims.

I'm thinking along the lines a of a claim like "there is a god", there should be an INFORMED GUESS at work here.
Yes, I'm very firm on this "educated guesswork" for theists and persons professing any sort of spirituality in the first place.

If there is absolutely no science and all "faith" with any religious claim then you are going to run into troubles very quickly.
Science is extremely limited, but thank God!!, with the advent of quantum theory and such we are now able to make better claims about who or what "God" may be. Which is extremely exciting for me.
Imagine. A common language for all theists within scientific framework!! That would cut through a lot of the crap for starters .


"You need both to comprehend the full truth." Indeed.
I hope this will be the age of the 'spiritual scientist' , and the 'scientific religious person'. Or something like that 🙂
I definately agree that people need to broaden their horizons wherever possible 🙂

Originally posted by Suzianne
Those who rely entirely on evidence are just as wrong as those who rely entirely on faith.

I can see how you would want to believe this as it validates your own position...

It is however total bunk.

You can believe anything on faith, because it's believing in things without evidence, and thus
without any anchor to reality.

It is rational to have as accurate a view of reality as possible because only an accurate view
is useful and a sound basis on which to base your decisions.

Thus believing anything on faith reduces the accuracy and utility of your world view, and
thus impairs your ability to make sound decisions.

Thus the only rationally and logically supportable position is of believing things based solely
and entirely on evidence.

Thus you are wrong and demonstrably so.