“Reformed Lurker, okay, now tell me there's no Santa Claus, lol. I really believe in saints. I hope it's not political. That would be the worst type of scam!

There is nothing like first hand knowledge, but who amongst us gets to witness this kind of thing (miracles)? I think it may take 3 miracles to become a saint. I'm going to have to look into this. Google, here I come!
Who is our last saint? Was it that nun that just died not too long ago that helped people? What's her name? Is she a saint? Oh, okay, it's Mother Theresa. Is she a saint?”

“"However, it can be proved to a point that he was who he said he was by studying the prophecies of the old testament and how he met every single one of those."

how do you know the writers of the bible werent lying or delusional? how do you know stories and events both in the prophecies and the "fulfillment" of those prophecies werent manipulated? how do you know the bible hasnt been wildly mis-interpreted, not just in the actual interpretation, but by the general public because of a lack of cultural reference? what if there was no promise of eternal salvation? would you still believe in god and the bible, or would you call it all hogwash? what if god doesnt care what you think of him, just as long as we're nice to each other?”

“great thread, but I'm so worn out from reading it all i can't post tonight
i'll be back though”

“tarabull -

#2. Here's what I'm saying. You aren't "required" to prove one-atom theory on your own to teach it. What I am saying is it would require faith to believe in it, even if you'd seen the mathematical proofs, unless of course, you'd been there. Until then, you are relying on other men or theoretical mathematics. All math is theoretical. The more complex, the more so.

#4. Thanks for the information. I'm going to have to look at this further because what you've posted seems to "excuse" the first law of thermodynamics, but still doesn't explain where the energy/matter would come from. It seems to say "trust me on this one". Sort of a faith thing. :)

#3/#5. Your definition of theory is correct. Perhaps you mistakenly only put part of the definition. Let me add from that same dictionary. "An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture."

"In the end... My opinion remains unchanged. Just as yours does.”

It's too bad. I believe strongly that the specific science we're discussing requires as much faith (or more) as belief in an intelligent designer. Most top scientists would agree. (I was seeking origins of the universe when I was saved about 6 years ago. I'm almost 37 now. I was reading a lot of laymen physics books in the search and realized almost all physisists when pressed will admit an intelligent designer.)

I think we both came away with something to think about, even if we still don't agree. Thanks for the conversation tarabull.”

“the total energy of a closed system is constant; any energy change must be compensated by a corresponding inflow or outflow from the system.

Please define the closed system.”

“It seems to me that Sarge continues to conflate the "Big Bang theory" or "One atom theory" with evolution.

Evolution simply argues that sepcies alter over time through natural selection. Darwin had nothing to say about the origins of the universe. Evolution doesn't even require a particular position on how life came to exist on earth. You can believe God got it started, that it came in an asteroir, that it was seeded by space aliens, that the necessary components got going in a primordial goo here on earth.

Evolution doesn't depend on any version of the big bang, whether it be the "one atom" theory or anything else.

For me, the evidence that species evolved, that humans and other apes have a common ancestor is overwhelming. Every bit of relevant evidence to come out since Darwin supports this, nothing contradicts it. For instance: Human DNA is closer to the DNA of Chimps and Bonobos than the Chimps' and Bonobos' DNA is to any other species, including the other Apes. The mainstream theory of evolution that the species have changed and given rise to new species through Natural Selection is compelling and there is no competing theory with as much evidence behind it - but I don't think the evidence for the explanation of evolution is as overwhelming as the evidence that it happened.

The evidence for the Bing Bang is less convincing to me. Its a theory worth investigating. Scientists are very comfortable with the answer "I don't know." For me, the legitimate scientific answer for how the world came to be, is "we don't know."”

“The evidence for the Big Bang is less convincing for most people, IMO, because it involves all Hard Science.

They have calculated what the Universe was like at 1x10-18 second after "The Event", I believe. If I recall that is when Gravity split from the other Forces.

Then again, I'm way behind on GUT and the theory might have changed significantly. ;)”

“ped - I have not confused the two theories. Why do you say that?”

“Crash, you are correct in that I can not be 100 percent certain that those who wrote the books of the Bible are telling the truth, that is why I said it still takes faith to believe it. Nobody can even say they know if there is eternal life or heaven or anything like that because once people go, they are tough to call on the phone. But, for me, even if there was no promise of Heaven (which there is in the Bible), that is really only secondary to the fact that what Christianity really is, is a relationship with God that allows us a way to find purpose and meaning in life and also offers direction which includes being nice to one another.

Pedx, I agree that original Darwinian evolution does not account for the origins of the universe, just of species, it is interesting though that so many people think that his idea of evolution automatically attaches to a non ID viewpoint. Any ideas where/when that connection was made?”

“Ernie Pyle Tollway Plaza, Indiana Tollway.

I'd guess about 1985.”

“sarge you treat them as if they are interdependent...

there are at least four very different ideas: 1) genetic drift within a species (I think this is what you call "microevolution") which happens all the time, 2) genesis of new species, 3)the origins of life on earth (and perhaps the origins of life itself), and 4) the creation of the univese. It's important to keep them distinct. It seems to me that you bunch several of these concepts together in "macro-evolution."”

“Deuce - I don't know. It seemed to happen early on - people felt Darwin's theory was a challenge to God - people both for and against religeon.

I believe that there is some sense that the sacredness of Man and God are linked, and seeing Man as born of Apes - evolved through competition and struggle undermines the sacredness of both.”

“ped - What did I post that made you think I treated your 4 ideas interdependently? You didn't answer that the first time either (above).
last edited: 12/14/04 11:00:44 PM”

“sarge - My prof told me last night that he'd email me some great information so I can share it. I sent him a reminder email this morning. I'll keep ya posted.”

“tarabull - Great! Thanks a lot.

I've since asked 2 "resident physics" guys at my workplace about it and they've responded that the known laws of physics didn't apply in the first few moments of time. But then, when asked "what happened?" they began using circular reasoning, such as "the singularity (one-atom) got it's mass from [somewhere else]" and when I asked "from where else?" they said they both agreed their was probably an intelligent designer. Hopefully your prof will have some better evidence as to why there isn't a creator.
last edited: 12/15/04 7:20:45 AM”

“I agree that within our current reasoning, it appears there would have to be a creator or creative energy.... but that is the problem here, our reasoning..we're thinking in terms of time... which is a concept we drummed up as humans to help us track and explain things...if you think in terms of infinity and timelessness...there is no need for a creator...our universe always has and always will be...can't accept that?? well a lot of you accept that your God always has and always will be right? who made him/her?

I'm no physicist and I'm not saying that the Big Band never happened.. I'm just saying there doesn't have to be an explanation for what came before the Bang if there was one. Whatever it was was just there and came from something before it which came froms something before it and so on and so on into inifity. You can never start from nothing so inifinity is the only answer.

I personally like to think that there is a higher order to things, but more in an energy sort of way...we're part of an ebb and flow that will continue forever and continue to evolve...

As far as God and Jesus, i see them as one more myth in the myriad of myths we have created as a human race to help us explain things. Albeit the greatest myth ever written.”

“Indiana John - your logic actually helps to support the teaching of ID in schools because you have suggested that we do not need to use science to help explain where the matter originally came from.

The reason there needs to be an explanation of where the matter/energy came from before the Big Bang is because (and this is a requirement of science, not faith) in order for it to be a scientific theory it needs to be supported with mathematics. No mathematics explain "something from nothing".

Your logic regarding "ebb and flow" is akin to the logic people use when they explain life on earth as having come from another planet (like Mars). It's circular reasoning.”

“Your logic regarding "ebb and flow" is akin to the logic people use when they explain life on earth as having come from another planet (like Mars). It's circular reasoning.”


Not sure what you mean by that?

Nigal I'll check your link in a minute”

“Don't check Nigal's twisted links about Flew. Go to the source and google Flew.”

“Yeah, cause ABC News is so twisted. LOL!”

“They sensationalize like all others. Here:

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/antony_flew/index.shtml”

“Bawhawhawhawhaw! ABC News = sick and twisted but Infidels.org = reliable source.

Stick to hooker jokes dude. LOL!”

“I read your article did you read mine or just scoff once you saw the addy? Did you check the links? I think the following article is quite impartial:

http://www.secweb.org/asset.asp?AssetID=369”

“Actually Sarge, looking through this - have a hard time telling whether the conflation came from you or tarabull. I do think your concept of macro-evolution conflates several distinct subjects, unless it really only does refer to the genesis of new species.

Here, is a post you made that involves the conflation, but it may be that it started with Tarabull, not with you and that you just accepted the structure of her argument. If so, and if your concept of "macro-evolution" includes only the genesis of new species, then I apologize for misunderstanding you.

“tara - I don't know if you're still following this, but have you reconsidered whether or not your "one atom theory" is faith based or not?

As a reminder, you stated:

"If you're trying to suggest that allowing myself to believe, w/out concrete scientific proof, that the single atom was there at the beginning makes Evolution "faith-based", I have to respectively disagree.

There is scientific evidence of what followed, which makes the underlying theory of Evolution a scientific one. Creation is a faith-based supposition."

If your theory violates the First Law of ThermoDynamics, maybe you should reconsider. I'm thinking maybe your theory is faith-based after all, which maybe you should question teaching it in the classroom.”
Sarge
11:38:44 AM
12/13/04”

“ped - Yes, I accepted the structure of his statements for point of debate. Thanks.”

“his?

:-(”

“sorry - I even knew you were a female. And one that if I weren't married I WOULD want to go back in time with. :)”

“it's ok. i understand why you said "his". you think the stuff coming outta my mouth is nonsense so it's only natural to think i'm male.

hehehe”

“See Bearmag, once again you're an argument looking for a partner. I gave no opinion one way or the other. I merely gave the link to the article as it was relevent to the subject.”

“Indiana - Let me put it this way. By saying that the universe has always been is a way of not having to deal with the question of where everything came from.

With God, he is not of this universe, so it makes sense to say he's always existed. He does not have to conform to the physical laws of our universe.

With matter and energy, they have (degenerative) characteristics which prohibit them to have always be around. Matter and energy must have been created somehow.”

“Nigal - I'm not looking for an argument.

I provided an impartial article...........you didn't.


LOL! I'm sorry, I couldn't resist.”

“In 1953 scientists Stanley Miller and HArold Urey were able to get amino acids to form by mixing steam, ammonia, methane, and hydrogen. Later experiments showed that heated amino acids in the absence of oxygen will form proteins, from there protocells were formed, yada-yada-yada...you get the first anaerobic bacterial cells. These early experiments are the basis for the widely accepted theory of how life began.

I teach this each semester, both in my high school bio class and at a local juco 2 nights a week. This subject never fails to start the discussion of religion vs. science, and it is alot of fun. I think it as very important to present relevent theories in science class. I am a product of a small town public school, and I was shocked when I got to college and heard my professors use phrases like the big bang, primordial soup, and evolution...but I was not equipped in high school to intelligently discuss those things. I believe it is important to present the big bang theory and the theory of evolution to high school students...but I do not believe it should be taught as fact. Students also need to be able to discuss other thories as to our origins. That is what real scientists do all the time at scientific summits.

Learning about the big bang and evolution did challenge my beliefs, and, in the end reinforced them.

If my students ask me what my personal beliefs are, I just inform them that school is not the proper time or place...and then I invite them to my Sunday School class.”

“... life began in a flask over a bunsen burner ...”

“I am agnostic and could only beleive in creation if due to thiestic evoloution. The literal Bible story won't cut it with me. I alwayus had questions growing up that could not be answered. After I went to college and studied microbiology, my questions went into warp drive. The answers have a lot of catching up to do. I do however agree with some of the Bible teachings about fallen civilizations. We basically are not the schit. There have been technical civilizations here on Earth in the past that have crumbled. I don't believe that we are the first or last generation of man on the planet. I do not believe we are alone in the universe. I think the universe teams with life. Those that believe in God should be the most advent believers in life in other worlds. To believe otherwise would put severe limits on the creative ability of God. Being agnostic is not an easy place to be. The data that I trust to be true tells me that I share 95% of my DNA with the great Apes. The coward in me also holds on to my Catholic upbringing, that warms my heart with the security of an ever loving God. I will allow my children to make their own decision. My children attend Catholic school and we also attend weekly mass. My wife is a firm believer in God. I actually hope they share her beliefs, because life would be much easier for them if they accept creation without question. Those of us that generally demand repeatable, physical evidence for things often live our Hell right here on Earth.
last edited: 12/17/04 11:19:12 PM”

“I believe many people have similar feelings 'driver. An old man told me once when I was questioning my faith "If you're right, and there is no God, well then I haven't lost anything because of my beliefs. But if I'm right, and there is a God, well then, you've lost everything." Made me think.”

“We are talking about God, but other religions have a high power also. Is everyone misguided?”

“lipstick - What do you mean "Is everyone misguided?" In what sense?”

“Sarge, we are focusing on God or Jesus, I guess because that is what most Americans believe in if they have a religious belief, but what about other countries where they have Gods or higher powers that go by different names. Are their Gods non existent if you are not religiously inclined? I'm not sure if Gods or higher powers in other faiths are believed to be responsible for creation as it is with God. How is it that we all have higher powers if there isn't such a thing? Are any of the religions right? Are they all made up? Did one group of people say, "those people believe in God, we need a God too?"

Does that make sense? I'm not sure if it makes sense to me. I'm finding it hard to express myself about what I want to say.”

“Hmmm. I think your the answers to your questions about the history of the religions varies greatly. Some are interconnected historical wise. For example, Judaism predated Christianity. When Christ died, along came Christianity. A couple hundred years later Islam came along based on Christianity. Another religion based on Christianity is Mormonism. The later two supposedly had "prophets" that had revelations from God that "something needed to change" for lack of a better way of putting it.

Another point that can be drawn out of your question is this - Only 1 religion is right or none at all. Some people think all religions are right. That simply can't be the case.

But I am thinking the core of your question has more to do with are we misleading ourselves with religion. That's obviously going to differ depending on who you ask.

I'm a Christian (was not Christian most of my life) and I would say there definitely is ONE God and he is the Lord Jesus Christ.

I think intelligent design theory is usually "pushed" by Christians because we don't want our kids to come away from school thinking that "Big Bang theory" is "Big Bang fact". It simply isn't, even by scientific measures. Unfortunately, that gets lost in the translation. If you follow the thread a teacher on here accidentally referenced a theory as fact after telling me that they reinforce it as theory to their kids. I think it slipped out ... that's not good. That shows me the "theory" aspect is NOT being stressed enough.

Why don't other religions get involved in this? Well, to some extent I think they do, but our political climate limits that a bit.

Bottom line - don't believe the relativistic hype that anything you want to believe is okay. Search your heart for the ONE truth. It's out there. Yes, some people made up religions just because they want their own piece of the pie. Look at the Branch Dividians. Look closely at the history of mormonism. Those are cultic extremes, but it all comes down to what the Holy Bible attempts to tell us from the story of Adam on - that we want to be like God. We want to be in control. We want to believe that we are the "supreme beings of the universe". It's our nature.
last edited: 12/18/04 12:25:39 AM”

“I'm a recovering catholic. I believe those nuns & priests were heinous. I don't think it really matters what you believe as long as you try to live a good life. The most devout people I met, were devout on the sabbath (& in public)and miserable the rest of the time.

I believe that there is something to an afterlife but uncertain as to what that is.

Churches are prob good for people that need their hand held and/or support.

I have no problem with teaching God in our public schools, courts, gov or whatever and believe in separating church & state.”

“I have a question for the people who do believe in intellegent design and G-d. Would you trust the public school systems to teach your kids about this? Would you want public school teachers teaching religion?”

“Nigal - to clarify, intelligent design is not religion.

As far as teachers teaching it - if students go through 12 years and do not learn about the major religions then something is seriously wrong with our school system.

That is not to say I want teachers to preach. Just to teach.
last edited: 12/18/04 9:35:46 AM”

“I’m not trying to put down anyone’s beliefs or religion, but to say that intelligent design is not religion is ridiculous. The whole think is nothing but religion with a secular mask.

The intelligent design movement is centered around the Center for Science and Culture (CSC), formerly known as the Center for Renewal of Science and Culture, which was founded in 1996. The CSC is affiliated with the conservative Christian thinktank, the Discovery Institute.
In their effort to gain widespread acceptance of their views, the CSC fellows devised the \"wedge strategy\" (the name comes from a 1998 long-term planning statement from the CSC that has become public) that seeks to exploit perceived discrepancies within evolutionary theory in order to discredit evolution and scientific materialism in general. Much of the strategy is directed toward the broader public, as opposed to the professional scientific community. The stated \"governing goals\" of the CSC\'s wedge strategy are \"1. To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies\" and \"2. To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God.\" Critics of ID argue that the wedge strategy demonstrates that the ID movement is motivated by religion and political ideology.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design”

“Intelligent design may be pushed by that group, but it did not originate from that group.

Just because something is pushed be religious people does not make it religion.

I have several atheist friends who believe in intelligent design.

"Ridiculous" is believing anything promoted by "religious people" is religion.
last edited: 12/18/04 10:55:27 AM”

“I have a future brother-in-law who literally can't sit through a church service without falling asleep. He's an active, non-bookish kind of guy. Traditional religion is difficult for him.

People learn in different ways. Some of this probably has to do with the fact that our brain structure can develop in different ways as a result of genetic, environmental and experiential factors.

So, we can end up - like my future brother in law - hardwired not to respond to certain learning experiences, like, maybe, a mass or sermon or book.

I'll show my biases a bit here, but I believe that if God was powerful enough to create the processes that resulted in earth and humans, he/she/it/whatever was also powerful enough to understand current educational theory and provide multiple learning experiences for people on Earth.

And we shouldn't just look at it from a current perspective. God has to appeal to ALL people from ALL of history. This includes isolated island dwellers, poor, untravelled serfs from the Middle Ages, etc.

So, it's probably not necessary for all the evangelicals to vow allegiance to the Pope and the one true Catholic, univeral church to reach heaven.”

“lurker - Why do you think that God would have to provide "multiple learning experiences for people on Earth"? Are you saying that God should be so powerful that he takes away free will and completely controls every aspect of our life including those aspects where we decide what to teach our children? Is that the type of God you would have preferred?”

“Intelligent design may be pushed by that group, but it did not originate from that group.
You’re right. It came from the bible.

Just because something is pushed be religious people does not make it religion.
Intelligent design is religion pushed by religious people, although I can’t call people who use deception as a means to an end religious. Again it’s religion hiding behind a secular mask. I can respect people who are honest and stand up for their beliefs and say that creationism should be taught in schools and work honestly to that end, but this is just a con.

I have several atheist friends who believe in intelligent design.
I’ve heard of Jews for Jesus, but atheists for god? That’s a new one on me.”

“"I’ve heard of Jews for Jesus, but atheists for god? That’s a new one on me.”

I don't know, atheists for god might know more than Jews for Jesus. LOL!”