Evidence for God from Science

k,

i think you got lost in the author's irony--the entire article supports the Big Bang.

Okay...let me make an effort at sorting through all of this. August, I apologize for not thoroughly answering your questions or trying to refute your arguments. I've been working between 13 and 20 hours each day, so whenever I come home I simply try to do something that is relaxing. Typing on the computer is relaxing, but I tend to overlook a lot of things when I am too tired...tonight I am writing after 13.5 hours of manual labor, but I finally got eight hours of sleep last night, so I should be pretty good for typing and not overlooking too much.

Kurieuo:

Does that mean if you were only a co-worker equal in position, that you would have kept quiet? I think I'd say something regardless, that such was wrong and uncalled for, and I'd perhaps try to weed out later where the remark may have come from...

I would have to agree with you on this. I agree with it 100%, actually. For someone to say such a thing goes against our standards as to what it takes to be a good human being. What you are hitting at, I assume, is a way to discover that in my heart, I believe in absolute truth. Both religion and ethical morals seem to have the same obligations...treat people the way you would like to be treated. The "Golden Rule." I am an extremely strict supporter of this rule, and I believe most human beings are also strict supporters. Perhaps you are right about absolute truth in scenarios such as this, if you are implying truth based on a majority rules type of thing. That may be where my confusion rests--I realize there is a minority of people who could care less about such statements (as sad as it is) and would say nothing in the scenario you gave. Perhaps some folks have a religion or a moral standard that does not allow them to speak out against any kind of behavior seen as "wrongful." Though they are the minority of the public, I am sure they do exist. For them, the truth in life rests with keeping your mouth closed and not saying anything. Perhaps their idea of truth is that in order to be a good person, it is your moral obligation to let other people or other countries deal with problems on their own. Their being in the minority simply doesn't matter when it comes to absolute ideas...since they have a different idea of what it takes to be a good human, there is proof that the belief in truth lies within the person doing the judging of any situation. It is relative to the standards they have set for themselves, whether from religion or ethics or metaphoric analogy of library books. It would be really awesome if there were an absolute truth on sticking up for other people or having empathy! It would be my idea of utopia if every human being on this planet were equipped with the reasoning and logic you and I have. However, I know it is not true in the same way that 1 + 1 = 2 is true...in the cases of human beings, there seems to be no absolute truth outside of physical observances. That may be why I've turned so closely to science! Who knows?

Also, I liked the article you presented on the Big Bang. Though I do not feel it had a fair balance between religion and science, I feel it was a great article because the person writing it didn't give up on the idea that religion and science are compatible. I just wish more people could see a compatibility between evolution and religion to where they wouldn't feel their relativistic views (any religion) were being threatened by absolute views (the components of mathematical and scientific logic.) If God is absolute truth and the goal of science appears to be the search for absolute truth, I am confused as to why anyone would worry about any of the findings of science...wouldn't scientists eventually be able to prove God? Shouldn't Christians support scientists with 100% confidence that God would eventually show up in the work? Why, if science is searching for absolute answers to questions many people still feel are unanswered, would it be necessary for so many Christians to put science second to the Bible? I know if I were a Christian and I had kids who wanted to know how to find God (in the literal aspect as opposed to the searching with your heart aspect), I would tell them to have complete faith that scientists are doing their job and that God will eventually be found.
Colors The next article you presented was intentionally confusing. It was meant as "scientific evidence" against the Big Bang, I assume, but I didn't really understand it. I guarantee that was the goal of the writer. It is another propaganda technique where a title is pleasing (such as "Big Bang is Not True" or "Evolution Proved False!") but the information within it is packed in such a way that no layman could understand it without delving into the subject so deeply that time is consumed. Since it is well known by propagandists that no scientist in his or her right state of mind would take such an article seriously--based on the general scientific knowledge of propaganda--the articles are posted with the intention of confusing laymen such as myself. I quickly tire of propaganda because, frankly, it is boring. It would take too much time to track down all the sources of your article, and that was the anticipated goal of the writer. Even scientists present articles for laymen to where everything they are saying in their difficult-to-understand mathematics are made understandable. Some of the scientists are Stephen Hawking, Brian Greene, and Richard Feynman (though the latter is oftentimes difficult to understand depending on which book you choose to read...some of his writing is strictly for scientists, whereas others are for laymen.) May I present a self-written example of propaganda? None of the sources in my "article" are real, just as none of the "facts" I am about to present. Let's assume I wanted to write an article denouncing the existence of God. To be true to propaganda, it is my goal to make it sound uninteresting and packed so full of sources that no one in their right state of mind would look them up. Here we go...
GOD FOUND TO BE A CLEVER HOAX
By Gregory Tibbert, Ph. D
Many Christians assume the existence of God based strictly on personal beliefs. Thorton and Roper, et. al (God is Fake, 1996. Fernberry Press, Inc.) denounced the existence of God (see Chapter 2, p. 135.) Their quick thinking, as determined by psychologists (An Easy Way to Find Hoaxes, 2001. Fernberry Press, Inc.) proved what has been believed by atheists (see poll on Atheistic attitudes, pub. 2001 in Pseudoscientific American,2000. pp.201-362.) for centuries. Regardless of the motivation behind the science involved, the outcome was generally the same in all laboratories (1001 Science Experiments You Can Do At Home Using A Lemon, A Pear, and Two Copper Wires. 1999. Fernberry Press, Inc.) A table of the experimental results can be found at http://www.fake-websites.com .

It takes a trained eye to spot propaganda. Let me try to show you some of the ways I intentionally made propaganda.
1) The title. For an atheist who doesn't know very much science, this article might be used to "prove" his or her stance on a disbelief in God.
2) The author. Having a "Dr." or a "Ph.D" after your name means absolutely nothing, unless you are a doctor in the field you are trying to denounce. Perhaps the fictional author of this article is a Doctor of Green Vegetables...what good does that do for an honest "scientist?" This person is obviously a pseudo-scientist, and I've seen several articles from them so far (such as this Dr. Hovind character I've heard so much about lately. He's definitely a propagandist.)
3) The sources. Every one of the sources comes from the same place or an affiliate of the same place. If you are truly to have a critical eye on anything, you must use multiple sources, including those that go against your stance. To be truly "fair and balanced" as Fox News claims (also propagandists), you are supposed to offer both viewpoints with an open mind to where you aren't being judgmental of either view.
4) The wording. I intentionally made the wording confusing. It makes no sense. Did you read it? It makes no sense. I did that on purpose. However, since the title had the desired impact, someone else might pick up on this and use it as an article for proving a point...fortunately, a title alone does absolutely nothing in the world of critical thought. I wouldn't read an article by this guy.
5) The audience hasn't been considered. If I wrote this article for a group of extremely educated individuals, they might be able to decipher whatever truth may be involved. However, I intentionally wrote this article for laymen in an effort to confuse them.
6) Nonexistent sources. If you click on the link to the website provided, you will notice that it doesn't even exist...any "source" can be quoted, regardless of if it is real or not. The assumption on the pseudo-scientist writer of this article (me pretending to be a pseudoscientist) was that no one would check the sources because it is too time-consuming.

I've been accused of being closed-minded in not wanting to read certain articles. That's because I have a good eye for propaganda...I've been trained to notice it, and I can spot it pretty quickly. Most of the article you presented was propaganda. The article presented by Kurieuo was much better, though it was still sprinkled with propaganda. The difference between K's article and the ones you have presented are, mainly, that K's made sense. It was an easy read and it was interesting. It was obvious the author wanted to connect to people as opposed to turning people away in a state of confusion.

[/b]August

You also assume a whole lot about me, like I have never investigated this 'stuff'. Why don't you quote your source of the definition of the theory evolution, instead of throwing out thinly-disguised insults?

I notice you did not yet answer my question about naming some extremist Christians.

I don't need to quote my source because it is a logical deduction. Let me try to explain it this way...if I asked you to read me the entire book Huckleberry Finn and you said "it is the story of a young boy and his travel on the Mississippi River through the hardships of growing up," I know you haven't just read the entire book to me, but have only touched on it a very little bit as far as plot goes. I know that you have left out all of the characters, the stories of the characters, the dialect, the setting, the tone, the climax, the resolution, and the specifics of the adventures and hardships of the boy. It's the same thing with evolution...the entire theory is not easily defined in a one-sentence bullet like the one for Huckleberry Finn. When you gave me your definition for evolution, you gave a one-sentence bullet like the one above, whereas I know the story quite well and know that you are leaving out a considerable portion. You want me to define evolution? Fine. "The systematic study of the changes of life as observed through several scientific disciplines, which are not only limited to--but do include--geology and the layers of rock corresponding to different epochs in earth history, chemistry (both organic and inorganic) and the behavior of particles and their effect on the changes of the biology of living things, biology so far as to include observances of natural selection and mutation, mathematics and the probabilistic nature of evolution's occurence..." It's pretty difficult to explain evolution in one sentence, considering the amount of information it takes to explain the theory as a whole. That is exactly why I didn't want to get into this debacle. To me, it isn't important what the one-sentence definition is. If anyone were to define something by one sentence, it loses all of its beauty, just as the story of Huckleberry Finn in my example. Not only that, but if people make the claim that they understand something simply because they understand the definition, they are wrong. Take this word, for example: love. 1. strong affection. 2. warm attachment. 3. attraction based on sexual desire. 4. a beloved person. 5. unselfish loyal and benevolent concern for others. 6. a score of zero in tennis. (Source: The Merriam-Webster Dictionary. 1997. Merriam-Webster, Inc.) If someone were to read those definitions of love without ever actually feeling it, what the heck difference does it make if they know the definition? There have been thousands of books written and movies made about love, not to mention the experiences you've had in your life. To me, those definitions are boring and do not contain all there is needed to be known to understand. I realize you are trying to get a rise out of me or "score some points" in an argument, and that is exactly why I wanted to refrain from the argument...it is a worthless debate. There is nothing coming out of it because I am not getting any philosophical understanding out of you, and you are getting no scientific understanding out of me. I assume that is what the two of us came here for, considering this forum has a leaning toward religious philosophy (which I would like to learn about), though it also allows scientific theory (which I would like to present in an effort to see how it works with different philosophies.)
As for naming Christian extremists--are you trying to get me kicked off this site? I'm sure the purpose of this board is not to bash Christians, in which case I would rather not name any Christian extremists. In truth, I don't know any specific extremists because our news media don't print or air articles on things against the majority opinion, but I was referring to specific movements...since bringing these things up in discussions before has put me into the garbage bin, I do not wish to tread those waters. I would rather have a sincere, honest, and Christian-like discussion. But just for reference, I think you already know exactly what I am talking about. If not, type into a search engine after narrowing the search down to " .edu" sites: "Witch Trials."

skoobie,

i don't think the article was intentionally confusing...and it definately wasn't against the Big Bang. it was an article mentioning scientists who are deviating from the Big Bang because it supports Creationism (exactly what you asked for).

just because something is too complicated for you doesn't mean its propaganda. and i thought you liked science and facts...you didn't even bother to read the article. i guess you just find science too boring sometimes.

You don't understand the concept of Satan or experienced his influence, so how can you claim that Christians should support Evolution when it goes against the Bible which is our defense against Satan who has an arsenal of weapons. Evolution is an intricate scam created by Satan through Darwin who started off somewhat believing in the bible but later changed his mind...that makes you easy, easy prey for Satan who literally used Darwin to create probably the biggest controversy to this day among Christians and non-believers. You never know how powerful a tool Satan has created until you try to save someone's soul only to find it ten times harder because of a theory that has come to claim to be fact.

skoobieschnax wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:Does that mean if you were only a co-worker equal in position, that you would have kept quiet? I think I'd say something regardless, that such was wrong and uncalled for, and I'd perhaps try to weed out later where the remark may have come from...

I would have to agree with you on this. I agree with it 100%, actually. For someone to say such a thing goes against our standards as to what it takes to be a good human being. What you are hitting at, I assume, is a way to discover that in my heart, I believe in absolute truth...

Your perception of what I was hitting at is basically correct, but my goal was more to discuss independant of whether you agreed or not (although I am delighted that you realised and embraced what I was hitting at!). What this scenario reveals is that you have within you an intuition that right and wrong really aren't relative. Some things really are right and wrong, and we expect others to be accountable for their actions when they do something wrong. Thus, it is only quite appropriate for us to reprimand a workmate who made a racial slur. We would expect better, and we can only expect better because we really do believe there is a morally better way to behave!

skoobie wrote:Perhaps you are right about absolute truth in scenarios such as this, if you are implying truth based on a majority rules type of thing. That may be where my confusion rests--I realize there is a minority of people who could care less about such statements...

To make a correction about my own view, I do not believe that a majority rules scenario makes something right or wrong. Such appears to be more of a society-says form of relativism. Yet, if this is true, then one society technically can't be morally better than another—they can only be different.

Now to be consistent with our awareness that some things really are wrong, while other things really are good, there has to be some absolute standard that exists (as you realised). Many Christians believe that this moral standard of right and wrong exists within God, above whom there is noone higher. And then when God created humanity, He imparted these moral values to us as He formed us in His likeness.

Have you heard of Foundationalism before? To quickly explain for those who haven't; there is a commonly recognised problem when it comes to justifying our knowledge. We develop a set of beliefs from prior beliefs, and our prior beliefs are developed from more prior beliefs, and so back and back our formulation of beliefs go. Now it obviously can't be the case that there exists an infinite regress to our held beliefs, seeing as we do come to certain conclusions about various things. If our prior beliefs were never-ending, then reaching conclusions wouldn't be possible. So, to get around this dilemma, philosophers posit that there exists a set of foundational beliefs. These beliefs are "basic beliefs" which have no prior support but should be accepted as true based upon their self-evident nature.

Now what does this mean to our discussion? Well it means that we have a philosophy which allows us to ground moral values as a set of basic beliefs! What needs to be asked next however, is where did these moral values come from, and what gives them their oughtness, that is, why is it we ought to follow them?

Now that was a lot to get through... I've got another scenario I'd like to run past you:

• Your friend at work announces she is getting divorced. She has fallen in love with another man, and although she has two children, she has told her husband that she cannot continue to live a lie. Her husband and children are crushed, but she feels she must be true to herself. You charge her with selfishness, lack of loyalty, and willingness to hurt others' feelings.

Do you think you have have any right to judge? And if not, why did you in the first scenario I ran past you—aren't people afterall being hurt in both cases?

Kurieuo.

I don't need to quote my source because it is a logical deduction. .....When you gave me your definition for evolution, you gave a one-sentence bullet like the one above, whereas I know the story quite well and know that you are leaving out a considerable portion. You want me to define evolution? Fine. "The systematic study of the changes of life as observed through several scientific disciplines, which are not only limited to--but do include--geology and the layers of rock corresponding to different epochs in earth history, chemistry (both organic and inorganic) and the behavior of particles and their effect on the changes of the biology of living things, biology so far as to include observances of natural selection and mutation, mathematics and the probabilistic nature of evolution's occurence..." It's pretty difficult to explain evolution in one sentence, considering the amount of information it takes to explain the theory as a whole........

Take note, everyone, Skoobie requires the rest of us to quote credible scientific sources, but he does not need to, since he knows it all through 'logical deduction'. He then proceeds to quote a definition of evolution, and not a definition of the Theory of Evolution, as defined by Darwin, and generally recognized as the theory that deals with how life evolved from common ancestry though naturalistic means. Of course the whole theory cannot be explained in one sentence, that is why scientists all over the world are still working to fill in the gaps in the theory. I asked for a definition, which is to say a statement of the meaning of the ToE, since he hypothesizes that the ToE also includes the origin of life, which it does not.

..., though it also allows scientific theory (which I would like to present in an effort to see how it works with different philosophies.)

I choose not to argue philosophy with science.

Which is it?

August

Take note, everyone, Skoobie requires the rest of us to quote credible scientific sources, but he does not need to, since he knows it all through 'logical deduction'. He then proceeds to quote a definition of evolution, and not a definition of the Theory of Evolution, as defined by Darwin, and generally recognized as the theory that deals with how life evolved from common ancestry though naturalistic means. Of course the whole theory cannot be explained in one sentence, that is why scientists all over the world are still working to fill in the gaps in the theory. I asked for a definition, which is to say a statement of the meaning of the ToE, since he hypothesizes that the ToE also includes the origin of life, which it does not.

You are only further proving that you do not wish to have a logical conversation, but wish to sling ad hominems at one another. If you have been reading this post, you will see that (for the most part) it has been a civilized conversation. Nor do I claim to "know it all." I only know as much as I know, and I can smell ad hominems from a mile away. To try and put it in another way to where you are not thinking I am attacking you or your beliefs, science does allow logical conclusions to arise...the Theory of Evolution is, in fact, based on logical deductions. Has it been witnessed on a macroscopic level? Not to my knowledge. You can either make the claim that theory is the result of a supernatural force (Satan's implanting and the implanting of a demonic Darwin to fool a lot of scientists, who then proceed to fool a lot of people), or you can make the deduction that the geologic records, chemical records, biological records, meteorological records, psychological records, archaeological records, and historical records were the result of natural forces, regardless of the high improbability. It is the goal of science to explain everything as being a natural occurence without the interjection of supernatural forces to explain something otherwise inexplainable. Either way you choose to look at it can be considered a logical deduction, I think, based on your belief system and how you choose to deduct knowledge from a series of facts. Fact: The geological and archaeological record shows a gradual progression of life from simpler lifeforms in the older layers of rock to more complex organisms in the newer layers of rock. Fact: Microevolution can be noticed quite easily under a microscope. Flu vaccines must be updated annually to account for new strands of the flu that have been mutated from previous strands of the virus. Fact: natural selection is both a logical deduction (based on the geological and archaeological records) and a witnessed event (look into peppered moths.) Survival of the fittest is a well-known concept...those animals (including humans) with desirable traits continue to reproduce while those who have not been as fortunate do not reproduce. Take humans as an example. Why is it that certain men/ women are considered more attractive than other men/ women? Why is it that people with so-called "undesirable" physical or mental traits have less chance of reproduction and survival than those with "desirable" traits? Fact: All of the amino acids present in any living lifeform have been reproduced in a laboratory using the logically deducted atmosphere of earth's early history. Though this may not seem amazing to some people (who are correct in saying that amino acids and proteins are a far reach from any living lifeform, no matter how complex or simplistic), it does go to show that natural forces can create the building blocks of life...how those building blocks fit together in the puzzle of life remains a pretty big scientific mystery, and some like to fill in the holes with supernatural forces while others would prefer to continue in their search for natural explanations. Fact: the early atmosphere of the earth can be assumed by the geologic records. The rocks of early earth are volcanic rocks, which assumes volcanic activity was greater in earth's early history. By utilizing this information as well as information about active volcanoes today, scientists are able to assume some of the atmospheric ingredients that must have been present in the earlier years when volcanic activity was much greater. The conclusion is that earth's early atmosphere was probably a lot like the planet Venus, and that gives more reason to study the attributes of that planet in order to expound upon theories of the early earth atmosphere.
All of those facts can be used for logical deductions. Your conclusion (I think) is that God created everything in its present form and that the facts above were Satanic implants into the earth and the minds of humans. (Please expand upon this, as I'm not entirely sure this is what you believe...I don't want to be accused of falsely asserting a belief.) Simply because I do not agree with you does not mean I am against you and your beliefs...that is a common misrepresentation of agnosticism/ atheism. I choose not to believe that I am a demon sent by Satan to change your opinions or beliefs. If you are strong in your beliefs, you will not be shaken and have nothing to fear by those of us who choose to believe along the lines of scientific reasoning. The least you could do is listen to why I believe what I believe...how you choose to take that information (or disregard it) is up to you, and I have no problem with your decision. Again, I am not here to bash beliefs, but to learn from them. Please explain your beliefs to me--as I am curious to know--as opposed to attacking my studies...it's taken me a long time to get where I am, and I take great pride in my level of education. It's not very friendly to discredit someone based on your own views, and I am trying not to automatically discredit you based on my views. I just ask for the same respect in return. Truce?

Kurieuo I enjoy your methodology. I am learning a great deal from you already, and I am beginning to really understand where you are coming from. See? I'm not such a punk after all.

Some things really are right and wrong, and we expect others to be accountable for their actions when they do something wrong.

I absolutely agree with you! You struck a chord with me when I read your scenerio. The whole what would you do thing is helping me to see your perspective a lot more.

To make a correction about my own view, I do not believe that a majority rules scenario makes something right or wrong. Such appears to be more of a society-says form of relativism. Yet, if this is true, then one society technically can't be morally better than another—they can only be different.

Thank you for making the correction. I am trying my best to have no assumptions about people's beliefs, and any skewing I am doing is unintentional. Sorry for the poor representation.

Many Christians believe that this moral standard of right and wrong exists within God, above whom there is noone higher. And then when God created humanity, He imparted these moral values to us as He formed us in His likeness

I like this philosophy very much. When I was a Christian, I believed this wholeheartedly. I still believe there is a moral standard that exists and that such a standard is a higher form of morality than we can achieve 100% (as no humans are free from sin), but I simply don't attribute it to a supernatural Being. I believe everything can be attributed to the way nature works, but I do not completely denounce the idea that nature is God or that God can be seen through all things (hence my agnostic beliefs as opposed to atheist.) Again, thank you for helping me to realize this viewpoint from a Christian perspective.

Have you heard of Foundationalism before?

Not before you explained it. On to your next scenerio:

Your friend at work announces she is getting divorced. She has fallen in love with another man, and although she has two children, she has told her husband that she cannot continue to live a lie. Her husband and children are crushed, but she feels she must be true to herself. You charge her with selfishness, lack of loyalty, and willingness to hurt others' feelings.

I do not feel I have the right to judge. This comes, I think, from my education in Psychology and probably from my religious upbringing as well (he who is without sin shall cast the first stone.) I would listen to her and her views before making any judgment--perhaps her husband turned abusive toward her and her children. Perhaps her husband became a deadbeet and expected her to do all the work at home as well as to be the breadwinner while he sits at home watching football and drinking beer all day.
I don't know which scenerio you were trying to explain, though. If her husband is a good man, does his share of the work at home with the kids as well as working for financial support, and he is loving and caring, then I probably might feel his pain and his confusion as to what went wrong with their relationship. I would probably even be a tad upset by her decision to leave her husband, considering every marriage is bound to have hardships and there is no such thing as perfection...it's empathy coming from the husband's perspective.
This is a difficult scenerio to analyze, though. I'm not entirely sure how I would respond. I am a big supporter of commitment, though, and I believe that if they originally thought they were made for each other, then they should continue to live that way. I would take the husband's view if she were simply looking for a better looking man or a man with more money. That would be the animalistic nature of lust and laziness working inside of her rather than the humanistic nature of moral obligation.
Wow, you have a great way to rack my brain!
vvart

You don't understand the concept of Satan or experienced his influence, so how can you claim that Christians should support Evolution when it goes against the Bible which is our defense against Satan who has an arsenal of weapons

Please explain the concept of Satan to me if you feel I don't understand. Also, I never made the claim that Christians should support evolution--that's for you to decide. I'm simply stating my views and why I believe them; not once have I said anything along the lines of "Christians should adapt the view of evolution." That is your deduction from my views. Though I think it would be interesting if a few people [/i]did see evolution in the light I see it in, I know it is not going to work that way. Instead, I just state my views while listening to others'. Feel free to explain why you despise evolution. I'll listen. Please take no offense if I disagree, though.

You never know how powerful a tool Satan has created until you try to save someone's soul only to find it ten times harder because of a theory that has come to claim to be fact

Some people simply don't want their soul to be saved, vvart. You must first get them to believe that their soul is unclean and is in need of saving before you can tell them they must be saved...I think my soul is pretty clean, though I am just as you and am not free from sin. You may think I need God to clean up my act, but I simply think I need to do some revisions to my way of thinking and bahaving. I've been successful in changing my ways without God thus far, or else you could say it is God who is making the changes in me to make me a better man. Whichever way you prefer, I am changing all the time, and it may or may not be seen as "saved without divine intervention" or "saved with unnoticed divine intervention." Either rate, I am better today than I was yesterday.
colors

i don't think the article was intentionally confusing...and it definately wasn't against the Big Bang. it was an article mentioning scientists who are deviating from the Big Bang because it supports Creationism (exactly what you asked for).

Who is the author, what is his credibility, and who are the scientists it speaks of? What is the educational background of those scientists? Forgive me for being a skeptic, but it's in my blood, and the article sounded in need of critical questioning...as I stated, I've read many articles that made a lot more sense. I can also detect propaganda quite easily, and the article fit the formula for a propagandist article...easy-to-understand title, whereas the article itself was pummeled with sources as opposed to sensical writing. Your explanation of the article was an explanation of the title, really. But that's okay. If you understood it, it's all fine and dandy.

just because something is too complicated for you doesn't mean its propaganda. and i thought you liked science and facts

I do like science and facts. I can't stand pseudo-scientific propaganda disguised cheaply as science and facts. There is a world of difference. Did you understand my phony article? Neither did I. I understood the title, but that was purposeful. I've been in journalism before, colors, I do know how propaganda works. We had to learn about propaganda for a month straight.

you didn't even bother to read the article. i guess you just find science too boring sometimes.

You're right. Sometimes, I do find science boring. When it is written for laymen such as myself, I find it very enjoyable. The reason I didn't read the article was because it sent a red flag up in my head as soon as I gave it a brief glance. The red flag said "propaganda alert! Propaganda alert!" Since I read the article presented by Kurieuo and thought it was well-written as opposed to propaganda, you should know that I am willing to read something if it is useful, purposeful, clear, and consise--the fundamentals of good writing. Also, I don't think Kurieuo was fooled by the article the way you stated...the article was in support of the Big Bang and explained why he thought it was compatible with the Bible. I think it is a compatible theory. "Let there be light!" BOOM! Explosion. Stars. Earth. Life. The rest is history.

"It is the goal of science to explain everything as being a natural occurence without the interjection of supernatural forces to explain something otherwise inexplainable."

No. It is the goal of science to explain everything AS IT IS. The moment it assumes unproven facts(like the lack of divine intervention), it is no longer science, but a sick perversion of it.

skoobie,

Who is the author, what is his credibility,...

if you're such a skeptic and you want answers so badly, go look that informaion up. it's okay to be a skeptic, but a skeptic who doesn't listen after asking questions and who does nothing to find answers is a fool. you asked, i answered. it's not my job to do your research for you. i already did my research. i already found my answers. i'm not the one who's lost.

Your explanation of the article was an explanation of the title, really.

not really. my explanation of the article was an explanation of the article...if you are still confused, well, i just don't know what to say about that...sorry. and again, the article was scientific, not propagandist.

Your right, I do find science boring. When it is written for laymen such as myself, I find it very enjoyable.

skoobie, again, science isn't supposed to be entertaining.

The reason I didn't read the article was because it sent a red flag up in my head as soon as I gave it a brief glance.

maybe these red flags that keep going off in your head are what's balking your attempts to find answers to your questions. i don't think most people learn much of value from brief glances.

p.s. by the way, do you even know what your questions are anymore?

Skoobie, check your PM.

Skoobie without Christ your under the influence of Satan, you just don't realize it. I know because I myself have felt his influence and its why you except Evolution without questioning it, Satan doesn't question himself. You also find it to be a credible theory, how ironic since i believe its the same theory Satan implanted into Darwin. Also what does cleaning up your act have to do with saving your soul, very little. Salvation is attained through belief in Christ as our Lord and Savior and in believing that we automatically will do our best to clean up our act. So frankly its irrelevant whether you can clean up your act without God as you won't be saved, without believing John 3:16. It goes something like this:

"For God loved mankind so much, that he gave his only begotten son, so that anyone who believeth in him shall have everlasting life."

Believing in evolution, or not believing in it has nothing to do with your salvation vvart. Why would Satan waste time making you believe something that will not deliver you to him? That said, scoobie is agnostic so satan doesn't really need to work on him right now, as he is in his grasp for the time being.

No I think you missed my point, I was trying to say good works won't attain salvation but faith in Christ, which has nothing to do with Evolution. I'm not saying Satan makes people believe in evolution, what I'm saying is Satan has created a theory that those under his grasp(atheists/agnostics) quickly believe, making others believe its also fact(schools teach it as being fact) and this in the process has caused many people to discredit the bible as being divinely inspired and that is lethal.

Evolution doesn't deliver you to satan but anything that pushes people from God is a plus for him, like tempting Eve, doesn't mean Eve was gonna worship Satan but she clearly went to disobey God.

Satan isn't working on Skoobie but yes Skoobie is under his grasp thats what i've been trying to say

I believe that Satan simply twisted the concept of evolution in the minds of christians. A good portion of the theory(READ:99% of it) is not contradictory to the bible, and as such, I see no reason not to accept it. What we should be fighting is naturalism. I'm still not sure why the hell naturalism is considered "scientific", there is no proof for it.

Maybe it's just human nature to rebel against God, remember the Israelites in the desert? Also, if they don't have to answer to God, then they only have to answer to themselves. Takes the pressure off, in their minds.