Who cares if someone is disrespecting God. Do you really think it offends his sensibilities? Respect is a worldly concept and I imagine God cares as much about what some random guy on a message board thinks of him as he does about my rank in Modern Warfare 2.

I don't think it is appropriate to use faith as a weapon to show that I am better than other people. Don't forget about Matthew 7:1. There's a lot of that going on in this thread. Others of faith should be embracing Science for what it is - an exploration of our universe and the things in it. We have God to thank for Science. Denial of science is a denial of a gift from God.

Bravo, Hibiskiss, for putting something to words something I might only grasp at. Since God made everything, he made these elegant laws by which the universe runs. Evolution is one such device, as basic as gravity or electricity. The latter two are just as much theory and suposition as our topic, yet they are accepted by every member of modern society.

Denial of a science that contradicts the Bible is not a rejection of a divine gift.

@TMW:
No, it is just denial of reality. Usually, it is just temporary. So, is the Earth the center of the Universe?

Contradicting the old testament is not contradicting the Bible. It is contradicting a tale told to men who were too intellectual inferior compared to today to understand the concepts of evolution, genetics, and modern physics.

@TMW:
And, it is a denial of the gift of thinking and reason that god gave you, I think was the point.

@Draugnar:
So, creationism isn't something we should look at, as real...it is just a story told to the ignorant masses to explain life?

That's my view, yes.

God created the universe through an act, but not in seven days. God created life on earth (and I'm sure on other planets as well), but didn't make it all spring up in a couple days into it's present form. He did the former through the laws of physics and the latter through the laws of biology and chemistry. He created those laws. Maybe God's touch set off the big bang. I wasn't there and I'm not an astro-physicist. Maybe he put a spark of life into each planet he seeded. Not a biochem expert and I wasn't there either. But the idea that horses and dogs and cats and ducks and bears and... All just sprang up exactly as they are today is total bunk. We have bread dogs and mixed breeds for centuries. My own dog, the long-hair miniature dachshund, is a blend of the miniature dachshund with cocker spaniel for the long hair. And both the spaniel and the dachshund were "created" through selective breeding of other breeds at some point centuries ago.

So, there wer no long-haired mini dachshunds on the ark or in the Garden of Eden. Of course, I dont' believe in the Garden of Eden, it is a tale told to explain away intellect and suffering combined. An attempt to put a source on and reason to the human condition.

And the tale of Noah is a legit flood tale, but the whole world wasn't covered and every animal in the world was not on the ark. It was a localized flood that, to Noah and the inhabitants of his region, may as well have covered the whole world as it covered the world as they knew it, and the animals brought on were the animals of the region.

As far as God talking to Noah, I am content to accept it could have happened and will learn when my time comes.

Draugnar it seems we have the exact same view. :)

@Draugnar: Seems a very reasonable position.

@ Draugner I can respectfully disagree with that, but not with the likes of TMW. If you have to refute well tested science and physical evidence to maintain any view than you should at least modify that view.

@USOnu

WIlliam of Ockam specifically stated that God was not to be ruled out in such a manner. That is that Occam's Razor is to be used as an empirical tool for testing the physical. It is a physical not a meta-physical tool. One can certainly attempt (I've seen it attempted many time before) to misuse it to ban the idea of a deity, but that is clearly stretching the idea to a point that was never intended. It's also stretching it into a philosophical tool rather than a mathematical one. It's much like the problems we come up with when one tries apply mathematics to grammar. You end up with such gems as double negatives. Does "No! No!" mean "Yes"? Absolutely not, but we're stuck with it because someone tried to apply math in a inappropritate way.

More succinctly, philosophy works through discussion and language. Occam's Razor (while a great time saving device in a material or experimental search) fails to produce anything in a search that isn't observable. To misuse it in a debate of this nature is essentially to try to shut down the conversation, or at least to limit it in a way that would artificially make materialism seem the stronger position.

Astronomy is a science that looks at the physical Universe and makes judgements about what is seen there. For someone to say I looked through a telescope and didn't see God therefore he doesn't exist is unscientific. It makes an unsupportable assertion from the absence of data. Much like the analogy from earlier, If I search my refrigerator for milk and find none. It means that there is probably no milk in my refrigerator. It does not mean that there is no such thing as milk. It also does not make milk unnecessary. Many people have searched for God inside and outside of Churches and found him. THey are using the right tools for the search. Physical experience, intuition, emotion, and logical reasoning are all part of the make up of humans. In my opinion, if I'm truly searching for something then I'd best be served to use them all together.

As to making God superfluous, the supposition that the Universe may have come into being by entirely material means, does no such thing. It is a supposition that is entirely untestable. Unless you think that scientists are going to be able to artificially create a Universe through natural means. Oddly enough then they'd be proving that Universes need a creator as they'd be taking that role themselves.

"You end up with such gems as double negatives. Does "No! No!" mean "Yes"? Absolutely not, but we're stuck with it because someone tried to apply math in a inappropritate way." who says it's "absolutely not" right????? you? well ladeeda, that proves everything

The Spanish have no such qualms with double negatives. It actually does come from around the 18th Century and it was a misapplication of mathematics to grammar. (citing my History of the English Language Prof here). SO no it isn't me, it just an historical oddity of this particular language, and shows that merely because something is useful on one instance doesn't mean that it's necessarilt useful in all of them.

My counter question would be, if you saw a toddler heading for an electric socket and yelled "No, No, No, No!" would you really expect him to divde the number ot No's by two and use that information to discern your meaning. There is really no problem w/ double negatives in language.

"WIlliam of Ockam specifically stated that God was not to be ruled out in such a manner."

Hmmm, a priest terrified by the implications of a philosophical tool? Why should his fear mean we can't take it to it's logical conclusion? If a god were to exist and have had such a preeminent role in forming the universe then why can't we assume it would have left traces of its existence in the physical world? There are none, which seems to imply that there is almost certainly no god.

"To misuse it in a debate of this nature is essentially to try to shut down the conversation, or at least to limit it in a way that would artificially make materialism seem the stronger position."

It's artificial how? Materialism assumes that the material world is all we can observe, and until we observe god theists don't even theorize, they just make things up as they go.

"If I search my refrigerator for milk and find none. It means that there is probably no milk in my refrigerator. It does not mean that there is no such thing as milk. It also does not make milk unnecessary."

No one claims milk carries out any particular role in the functioning of your refrigerator, for one. Furthermore, why isn't finding no milk in the fridge:no milk in the fridge::finding no god in the observable universe:no god in the observable universe? What does "searching for god" in a church mean? Physical experience is out, that's for sure, so stop claiming that it helps unless you want to pony up an example of a physical manifestation of your particular god. Intuition and emotion are unreliable, and certainly don't correspond reliably to the observable universe. Logic likewise does not require a correlation between abstraction and reality.

"It is a supposition that is entirely untestable."

Any more untestable than god? As far as whether our universe was created in a lab, so what if it was created? It doesn't make the creator divine, or any particular variety of god, and if you claim that it was this or that particular variety of god then you've got quite the task of explaining where that god came from or why it gets to be uncreatable but the universe doesn't.

i agree

"No, it is just denial of reality."

Okay, then prove the theory of evolution.

@ TMW Methicillin-resistant Staphyococus aureus.

AKA MeRSA AKA superbugs

MY TWO CENTS:
I am not a young earth creationist, nor a Bible thumping moron. I love science and math and plan on having a career utilizing the laws of the electrical physics. I am a Deist at heart.

However, I do not think Darwinism is up to snuff with scientific standards. For a scientific theory to be credible, it needs to yield results that are reproducible. It needs to predict what will happen and be right. The theory of gravity predicts that an object will accelerate at a rate of 9.8 meters per second per second when dropped anywhere on earth.

Darwinism does not do so. Darwinism tries to feebly explain something after it happened, and offers no concept as to what will happen in the future. Gravity however does. Gravity, as well as other scientific theories, can explain what happened BEFORE the event ever happens. We can predict when the Sun will explode, and how it will do so. We can predict the trajectory of an asteroid. We can predict the movement of electrons throughout a circuit.

Darwinism CANNOT do so. Darwinism is based on chance. A light-sensitive cell just so happened to form; air-breathing functionality just so happened t occur; sexual tendencies just so happened to appear. No other science bases their theories on chance. There is probably in other sciences, for we do not know the exact position and properties over everything in the system at all times; however, other sciences do not just make blind guesses.

TO BE CONTINUED:

Darwinism claims that an organism will pass down its genetic traits by reproducing more. The more successful the trait, the more chances to reproduce and the more likely it will pass on. As for the flaws of Darwinism itself, it cannot explain a lot of things:

-Sexuality: Sexuality is wholly unproductive. To require another organism to procreate is a great hindrance. It is much more successful to reproduce asexually. Yet Most multicellular organism are sexual organisms. This does not hold for Darwin's theory.

-Homosexuality: Homosexuality is even more unproductive than heterosexuality. You cannot reproduce in engaging in homosexual sex. Yet, there are entire species that build their society around homosexual behavior. It would be much more productive to completely eliminate this gene out of the genepool. Yet it isn't. (this point is under the pretense that homosexuality is a born trait, not a learned trait.)

-Protein Building: As science develops, evolution has more holes in it. We are finding that genes do not control everything; protein structures do. And these cannot be passed down via genes. Therefore, and organism that has a "disorder" that gives the organism a protein structure that enhances its reproductive capability, then its genes get passed down even though its genes did not offer anything beneficial.

-Sexual tenderness: Many species have the male getting consent from the female before intercourse. This methodology isn't logical. Aggressive rape would increase the reproductive chances of the organism. And because aggressiveness is related to hormones, which are related to genes, aggressiveness can be passed down. (There have also been studies down that show that domesticity, AKA non-aggressiveness, is genetic as well.) But most species are not. Males do not just go around raping every single female he sees.

-intermediate species: Because Darwinism claims that evolution is a continuous process, the biological composition of the earth, both present and past, should be continuous as well. Yet we can clearly classify species and find clear distinctions. Even with more "intermediate species" being unearthed, the Tree of Life is very must patchy. This is a great obstacle that needs to be overcome.

-Humans: Humans clearly have highly superior traits than other animals. Yet there are no other animals like us. There are many felines; there are many rodents; there are many fish; there are many reptiles; there are only 1 living species in the homo genus. We are clearly different from all other animals. We change the environment around us; the environment does not change us. We have a mental capacity unseen. Why are we the only ones? Darwinism would give rise that the probability of multiple human-like species is high considering the highly successful nature of our traits. But this isn't the case.


I could go on about the many things Darwinism cannot explain, other than "well, it just chanced that way" which is no greater than creationists. Darwinism has a lot to go before it can be considered a true scientific theory.

@ USOnu

"Hmmm, a priest terrified by the implications of a philosophical tool? Why should his fear mean we can't take it to its logical conclusion?"

Now, you seem to have a wonderful grasp of what is and isn't a fallacy. Why would you rely on the fallacy of omniscience to try to defuse this one? I made the reasonable assertion that it's inappropriate to use a tool meant to be applied in a physical search as proof or evidence that something metaphysical doesn't exist. To this you respond that he was scared to take it any further? Care to enlighten us as to your insight on the cowardice of William of Ockham (a monk who challenged the Roman Catholic Hierarchy on their materialism, then faced and was acquitted by the Spanish Inquisition), or did you just make that one up as you went along?

@ USOnu

"It's artificial how? Materialism assumes that the material world is all we can observe..."

Materialism is what? Now who's making things up as he goes along? It is entirely in keeping with most worldviews that the material world is all we can observe. Materialism is "a theory that physical matter is the only or fundamental reality and that all being and processes and phenomena can be explained as manifestations or results of matter". You've made an attempt to sidestep the argument and force a discussion of metaphysics into physical terms only allowing physical evidence. To misuse Occam's razor as a way to limit discussion is artificial. It is an attempt to presuppose one point of view, and place all others as aberrant without actually showing them to be so. You won't agree that this is so, most likely because you believe fervently that all others are aberrant. Still it is an artificial way to place burden of proof on your opposition.

You made a statement to the effect that believing in Christianity is also believing that all of Astronomy is wrong. I challenged that notion. You softened it to Astronomy can't disprove the existence of God, but renders him superfluous. I challenged that notion as well. The burden of proof in this instance is most definitely not on me as it isn't a discussion of whether or not God exists. It is a discussion of whether or not Astronomy shows that he doesn't exist. I suspect that you’re seeing the weakness of your argument about now.

@ USOnu
(Regard the notion that a creator is not necessary for the formation of the Universe)

" 'It is a supposition that is entirely untestable.' [CA]

Any more untestable than god?" [USOnu]

No, but it is no less so either. It's largely irrelevant though. The question was whether Astronomy shows that God doesn't exist, and you've shown no evidence that it does.
Merely throwing out the tired old misuse of Occam's razor doesn't prove anything, and it certainly doesn't help your cause. If belief in God is anathema to acceptance of Astronomy, then show an actual theory that God doesn't exist according to Astronomy and stop trying to sidestep the question.

@ USOnu

"No one claims milk carries out any particular role in the functioning of your refrigerator, for one."

So now who's making up special rules for God? This is okay but that isn't? Hmmmm?

"Furthermore, why isn't finding no milk in the fridge:no milk in the fridge::finding no god in the observable universe:no god in the observable universe?"

Because God is understood to be a metaphysical being and one would not expect to find him in this way. Milk is material. The analogy was intended to show the weakness of looking for something with the wrong equipment. But if we must, then it's more analogous to saying "I didn't hear any milk in the refrigerator therefore milk does not exist". Whichever way you'd like to play it, it's still an incomplete search.

@ USOnu

"What does 'searching for god' in a church mean?"

I'm glad you asked. It means finding a place in which the physical experiences, anecdotal evidence, emotional state, logical arguments, and empirical data point to the idea that God exists. To place one of these as paramount over the others is to limit your search for truth. The very thing that makes Materialism strong as a scientific outlook makes it weak as a philosophical one. It denies the emotional, spiritual, and intuitive nature of human beings. These are as you say "unreliable", but in practice they are not so. How many times has your "gut feeling" been right? How often do you really ignore your emotions in decision making (or in an argument such as conjuring the erroneous idea of a "terrified priest" when the actual historical figure was courageous)?
The flaw with materialism is that it must endeavor to limit the discussion to material things. There is more to the human spirit than material things. At least in my experience there is more.

@ USOnu

"[Creating the Universe] doesn't make the creator divine, or any particular variety of god, and if you claim that it was this or that particular variety of god then you've got quite the task of explaining where that god came from or why it gets to be uncreatable but the universe doesn't. "

Once again, we're back to fallacies. Why use this red herring to try to side step the issue? Astronomy does not prohibit the belief in God. Neither does it render him superfluous. The ideas that you seem keen to move on to have little relevance to those statements.