God did not create the universe, says Hawking

[Guest 6.8 AR]

:D I love this thread:D:D:D

Like I said earlier, proving either side would be difficult.

Having faith in either side can be tenuous. Sometimes

it just pays to accept one or both sides, and let your faith

guide you to what you believe. Science marches on, anyway.

All I wish is that people leave the hatred out of their

arguments with either side. Neither can prove the other

wrong. Why get mad? Aren't we just looking for the truth,

anyway?

[Handsome Rob]

The point... the fish of the sea, etc. already existed.

Yeah, but only by a couple of days, if the bible is to be believed. It takes thousands of years for fossilization to occur. According to the bible, the world isn't old enough for fossils to have formed.

[molonlabetn]

Salma Hayek is proof that God exists, and that he wants us to be happy.

[Guest jackdm3]

Amen.

[Handsome Rob]

Now that I can believe

[G27]

It's an issue because if the Bible is true, fossils cannot exist.

Completely false - we do not know how long the 'days' of creation were, nor, if we take the story of Adam & Eve literally, do we know how long they lived in the garden before they sinned.

Both creation and scientific theories can coexist, it's the dogmatic approach you're displaying here that makes people choose 'sides'.

[Guest SUNTZU]

:D I love this thread:D:D:D

Like I said earlier, proving either side would be difficult.

Having faith in either side can be tenuous. Sometimes

it just pays to accept one or both sides, and let your faith

guide you to what you believe. Science marches on, anyway.

All I wish is that people leave the hatred out of their

arguments with either side. Neither can prove the other

wrong. Why get mad? Aren't we just looking for the truth,

anyway?

I'm not mad, I'm just wondering. Watch the Life of Brian clip. I think it has more to do with thinking for yourself and your personal beliefs than what you are told at the megachurch where you can fit three Walmarts inside. If there wasn't organized religion I could probably be riding around in that Jetson's style car I was promised. Instead you have people blowing themselves up, genocide, threats of nuclear ****ing war, and hyperinflated egos and people looking down their noses at everyone around them...in all religions. Good times.

[Smith]

Yeah, but only by a couple of days, if the bible is to be believed. It takes thousands of years for fossilization to occur. According to the bible, the world isn't old enough for fossils to have formed.

couple of problems. There are at least 4 Earth ages using Biblical text ranging from 10k years to roughly a few million. The debates on these are interpretations of "days" and a few other issues. You also have to consider the time between the creation out of the "void" and the first day of creation. There is no time indicated between theses events. Again a worldwide flood would account for all these issues as well as the carbon dating inconsistency and gaps current science can't rectify.

As to OS and the geologist statement, they can't even get a consensus on dates of Niagara falls or the Grand Canyon. IN fact one recent study has found that Niagara Falls is actually 10k years younger than previously thought. Scientist are like politicians. Get ten of them in a room and you'll end up with a 10 front civil war. Just saying there are some unexplained issues with the flood, but the flood explains vastly more questions than it leaves unanswered. I might add that is scientific theory at work .

To the guy talking about heated comments, I thought this was actually a pretty civil thread compared to Glock butt and 9mm vs .45

[Handsome Rob]

Completely false - we do not know how long the 'days' of creation were, nor, if we take the story of Adam & Eve literally, do we know how long they lived in the garden before they sinned.

Both creation and scientific theories can coexist, it's the dogmatic approach you're displaying here that makes people choose 'sides'.

So, the bible's true apart from the parts that aren't, or are are unexplainable, but let's choose to believe it anyway & build theories that fit, until we decide they don't and change them or are proved wrong so we'll change the parameters of the theory so they fit again?

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Completely false - we do not know how long the 'days' of creation were, nor, if we take the story of Adam & Eve literally, do we know how long they lived in the garden before they sinned.

Both creation and scientific theories can coexist, it's the dogmatic approach you're displaying here that makes people choose 'sides'.

That's the part they don't understand.

[Chucktshoes]

Completely false - we do not know how long the 'days' of creation were, nor, if we take the story of Adam & Eve literally, do we know how long they lived in the garden before they sinned.

Both creation and scientific theories can coexist, it's the dogmatic approach you're displaying here that makes people choose 'sides'.

Exactly. Conflict exists between science and the Church only if we wish them to. History is replete with great men of science who were also great men of faith.

[Smith]

I'm not mad, I'm just wondering. Watch the Life of Brian clip. I think it has more to do with thinking for yourself and your personal beliefs than what you are told at the megachurch where you can fit three Walmarts inside. If there wasn't organized religion I could probably be riding around in that Jetson's style car I was promised. Instead you have people blowing themselves up, genocide, threats of nuclear ****ing war, and hyperinflated egos and people looking down their noses at everyone around them...in all religions. Good times.

What if your beliefs end up lining up with said "mega church". Are you not a free thinker? Is a free thinker a person who only believes something contrary to others? How exactly would that bring things together more?

I do understand where the sentiment comes from, however. There are many on both sides who believe only what they are told and do not search through those things to find truth. There are those who are against because of a reaction to something they can't understand and there are those who believe in things simply because they are too lazy to try and understand. Both are wrong.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

So, the bible's true apart from the parts that aren't, or are are unexplainable, but let's choose to believe it anyway & build theories that fit, until we decide they don't and change them or are proved wrong so we'll change the parameters of the theory so they fit again?

He didn't say that at all. No one suggested that you had to use science to prove the Bible,

or the Bible to prove science. That doesn't say it can't be that way, either. No one is

forcing anyone to believe what they choose to believe, are they? Man's mind makes

that decision after using his mind, unless he decides he wants others to tell him how

to be.

[Smith]

So, the bible's true apart from the parts that aren't, or are are unexplainable, but let's choose to believe it anyway & build theories that fit, until we decide they don't and change them or are proved wrong so we'll change the parameters of the theory so they fit again?

Yes, except the Bible is true. It is our understanding that is catching up and developing to comprehend.

How is that different than science? We believe until we have evidence to the contrary then we change the model to fit our understanding.

[Guest SUNTZU]

What if your beliefs end up lining up with said "mega church". Are you not a free thinker? Is a free thinker a person who only believes something contrary to others? How exactly would that bring things together more?

I do understand where the sentiment comes from, however. There are many on both sides who believe only what they are told and do not search through those things to find truth. There are those who are against because of a reaction to something they can't understand and there are those who believe in things simply because they are too lazy to try and understand. Both are wrong.

I think most people treat their religion like the Terms of Agreement when you sign up for something on the internet. They scroll to the end without reading and click I Accept and go on.

[G27]

So, the bible's true apart from the parts that aren't, or are are unexplainable, but let's choose to believe it anyway & build theories that fit, until we decide they don't and change them or are proved wrong so we'll change the parameters of the theory so they fit again?

No, I'm simply pointing out that there are things that aren't fully explained.

However, even if we ignore the creation 'days' and stick with the story of Adam and Eve, there's NOTHING in the bible that tells us how long they lived in the garden before they ate of the fruit of the tree of knowledge - it could literally have been billions of years - we simply don't know, and it's unimportant in the grand scheme of things.

But then, I'm not sure why I'm even explaining this to you, as you've obviously made up your mind already. I would suggest you actually read up on the subject before making patently false statements.

[robbiev]

Salma Hayek is proof that God exists, and that he wants us to be happy.

I thought that was beer. Beer AND Salma Hayek, now THAT'S proof.

[canadienmike]

So, the theory of evolution is true apart from the parts that aren't, or are are unexplainable, but let's choose to believe it anyway & build theories that fit, until we decide they don't and change them or are proved wrong so we'll change the parameters of the theory so they fit again?

Fixed it for you

[Smith]

I think most people treat their religion like the Terms of Agreement when you sign up for something on the internet. They scroll to the end without reading and click I Accept and go on.

Great analogy! +1!

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I'm not mad, I'm just wondering. Watch the Life of Brian clip. I think it has more to do with thinking for yourself and your personal beliefs than what you are told at the megachurch where you can fit three Walmarts inside. If there wasn't organized religion I could probably be riding around in that Jetson's style car I was promised. Instead you have people blowing themselves up, genocide, threats of nuclear ****ing war, and hyperinflated egos and people looking down their noses at everyone around them...in all religions. Good times.

I haven't seen that in a while. I think a lot of the people in that megachurch have been stereotyped because

they don't necessarily represent yours or my views, at all. I've also never been in a megachurch, so I wouldn't know.

Human beings and their interpretations is where the problem is. It's that understanding of good and evil and how

one deals with it, individually and collectively. Something else that gets in the way is differing philosophies(real ones).

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Great analogy! +1!

Yes, it is!

[Handsome Rob]

I think the point I have been trying to make is that Religion, all Religion as based on books. People who believe these religons take the stories in these books and take them as the truth, as absurd as some of them may be.

I simply cannot wrap my head around the fact that people can believe these stories to be true & yet dismiss other stories (Let's say, Star Wars) to be fictional. Star Wars is set 'Long, long ago, in a galaxy far, far away' Therefore it's unproveable & probably (although not defintely) made up. The Bible was written long ago, in a country far away, buy an unknown person. How is it any more plausible than Star Wars?

The physics behind the creation of the Universe is, admittedly, sketchy but it is plausible & large amounts of it are proveable. The entire theory of creationism teeters on the acceptance of the bible as being ultimately true, implausible as it may be.

[G27]

I think the point I have been trying to make is that Religion, all Religion as based on books. People who believe these religons take the stories in these books and take them as the truth, as absurd as some of them may be.

I simply cannot wrap my head around the fact that people can believe these stories to be true & yet dismiss other stories (Let's say, Star Wars) to be fictional. Star Wars is set 'Long, long ago, in a galaxy far, far away' Therefore it's unproveable & probably (although not defintely) made up. The Bible was written long ago, in a country far away, buy an unknown person. How is it any more plausible than Star Wars?

The physics behind the creation of the Universe is, admittedly, sketchy but it is plausible & large amounts of it are proveable. The entire theory of creationism teeters on the acceptance of the bible as being ultimately true, implausible as it may be.

Yah, it's called faith, and for many folks it comes from experiences we've had that can't be explained logically otherwise.

Empirical evidence trumps grasping at theories for most folks.

[Daniel]

I think the point I have been trying to make is that Religion, all Religion as based on books. People who believe these religons take the stories in these books and take them as the truth, as absurd as some of them may be.

I simply cannot wrap my head around the fact that people can believe these stories to be true & yet dismiss other stories (Let's say, Star Wars) to be fictional. Star Wars is set 'Long, long ago, in a galaxy far, far away' Therefore it's unproveable & probably (although not defintely) made up. The Bible was written long ago, in a country far away, buy an unknown person. How is it any more plausible than Star Wars?

The physics behind the creation of the Universe is, admittedly, sketchy but it is plausible & large amounts of it are proveable. The entire theory of creationism teeters on the acceptance of the bible as being ultimately true, implausible as it may be.

yep.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

How about because Star Wars is fictional? I didn't know anyone has tried to say it was fact.

The bible, and science wasn't intended to be entertainment. Star Wars was.