Evolution and Intelligent Design

[Mastermind]

You can go and kiss a barnyard animal! It wasn't "YEC dribel." A Big Bang without God, 1) won't happen (where did the matter come from?

The multiverse.

2) order won't come naturally out of that mess.

Define order.

[AttentionKMartShoppers]

The multiverse.

Where did the multiverse come from? Matter isn't eternal-if so, heat death would have occured. Things wind down, correct?

Define order.

The antithesis of a ball of hot expanding unknown substance.

[Mastermind]

Where did the multiverse come from? Matter isn't eternal-if so, heat death would have occured. Things wind down, correct?

The multiverse has always existed.

The antithesis of a ball of hot expanding unknown substance.

Does not compute.

[AttentionKMartShoppers]

Matter cannot always have existed, it would have experienced heat death if it's always been. The Big Bang would have caused great disorder, and order in that situation would have been the gases separating, or forming into stars..you hopefully get my drift. I regret saying those two words, because I don't want you yammer on like you.

[Mastermind]

Matter cannot always have existed, it would have experienced heat death if it's always been.

Not if there's an infinity of it. and a block flying through space will never experience heat death if left alone.

The Big Bang would have caused great disorder, and order in that situation would have been the gases separating, or forming into stars..you hopefully get my drift. I regret saying those two words, because I don't want you yammer on like you.

And why is this impossible? Because modern science disagrees with you, and given your track record, you know who i'll side with. No offense.

[Kelly]

K-Mart, science leads us to believe that nature is governed by a few simple laws. If this is indeed true, I do not see why this provides any less evidence of God than a universe where God is forced to intervene on a regular basis just to keep things running.

It seems to me that you are using your own lack of understanding to prove God's existence.

[Kelly]

Religion has long served the purpose of explaining observations which cannot be explained otherwise. Once upon a time, virtually all natural phenomena were explained using religious arguments. As our understanding of nature grew, we came to see that far simpler explanations existed, and we abandoned certain religious fables. There are two implications in this trend:

1. As humans we feel compelled to explain the world around us. It is evidently very difficult for us to accept an unanswered question. Thus, when confronted with the enormous complexity of biology—and all its unanswered questions—we feel absolutely compelled to fall back on the tendency to invoke religion and the supernatural to explain what we ourselves cannot.

2. There is a fear among some religious people that science may ultimately explain everything, and leave no room for religion. This is not true. If and when science discovers all the laws of nature, there will still be the question of why these laws exist at all. Science can never explain this; science can only discover these laws and make predictions based on them. Nothing more. The religious should embrace the scientific method, not brand its practicioners as atheists. Scientists study God's creation, and pose no other threat than to challenge your own personal and fallible beliefs. They cannot dethrone God, only your sense of well-being. When you impede them, you impede humankind's progress toward understanding God.

For those who earnestly seek truth, it is often necessary to live with the discomfort of an unanswered question. The alternative is to make up a false answer, dismiss the question, and remain forever ignorant of this piece of truth. This is the tendency of many: they seek solace in the mistaken belief that science proves their particular view of religion, and so can continue with their lives as if they have answered some fundamental questions. This is not science, and those who think otherwise are only shrinking from a quest which their religion encourages them to undertake.

I am sorry for this. I came here as a scientist and a religious person, only to find the most superficial debate on the relationship between science and religion. I asked a couple of fundamental questions, only to have them swept aside in a fruitless debate on what is possible under our currently held beliefs of scientific law—and mostly from those who understand very little about these laws. There are exceptions, of course, and I am sorry that the voices of reason (typically) are squelched by those who feel their own time, place, egocentricities, and inadequacies are sufficient to justify their religious beliefs. It is a shame—though not atypical—that the most vocal of religious supporters are the least qualified to argue the case for God. It is the tragic history of humankind that ignorant loudmouths often determine the course of human events, only to find posthumously that their strident convictions are antithetical to the teachings of Christ.

Blessings to all, that each in his own way may find his truth.

[Lurker]

Mastermind,
It seems to me that matter did not always exist because that would mean the past contains an infinite number of years. If the past is infinite then you could never get to today.

[Mastermind]

Mastermind,
It seems to me that matter did not always exist because that would mean the past contains an infinite number of years. If the past is infinite then you could never get to today.

Unless all time is relative to each other.

[Lurker]

Unless all time is relative to each other.

Yes, but still you have an infinite number of years relative to the matter itself. Since that same matter exists today you must conclude that it can not be infinitely old.