Science is a human concept, and it didn't create the world. However, I believe in a scientific explanation of the origin of the world.

Well, neither created the world. The world happened on it's own through the natural evolution of the Universe.

I mean, we made science, so obviously science has not made anything before we existed.

And whether or not there is a god, we already know how the world came into being right up to something like a millionth of a second after the big bang, and it wasn't a magic creator waving a wand.

i think its science which has created the world............

science has created all the comforts for us and there is evidence that it is the creator and still if we say god is the creator then it is foolishness as it is just an imaginary figure......

In any debate it is important to assert the facts. Facts are the basic support structure of any argument, and anybody with common sense would agree. So let's examine the facts;

*The defintion of FACT; an idea that is true becuase of circumstantial evidence to support it.

This is something that many "mythologists" fail to understand. There IS evidence that Jesus was real. But, evidence that he was God/Part Of God amounts to nothing more than folklore and stories. Christians take their faith on the bible. Definition of FAITH; to believe in something without circumstantial evidence to support it. Here is another fact; The bible was not only written decades after Jesus, but was edited and re-written numerously. Books were added and removed, translated and re-translated since it was written almost 2,000 years ago.

Christianity's main argument for the existence of God is the bible. So theoretically, if a single part of the bible is proved untrue then the thread of Judea religion is torn apart right? The bible was written (and re-written) so that there is no way to prove it wrong. Kinda like a horiscope right? Science is absolute fact. It is based on the PROVEN laws of nature. It is based on humanity's need to know the truth of the world around us. Christians believe that becuase we can't explain the creation of the universe, God must have done it. Most people can't possibly fathom the imensity of the unviverse so to assume that there is a creator who conjured up the whole of it is preposterous. FACT; Creation of the Universe (The Big Bang)

is only a theory, and not accepted as a proven law. So to use something that is still as of yet, unexplainable, to "prove" the existence of God is actually more damaging to your argument than anything.

Now it is time for opinions:

People are afraid of the unknown. Since the beginning of mankind people have had gods and folklore to explain the unknown. As science developed, gods became obsolete and purely fantasy. The modern Christian is just a product of an earlier ancester. People cannot accept the fact that death may possibly be permanent and final. They cannot accept that life is just a random universal evolution. People want to be comforted by the fact that there is someone there to guide and nurture them. The real miracle is life itself and your time in consious existance should be considered the most valuable gift of all. Life is precisiuos, enjoy it. Accept that we are infitesminally small and only amount to anything as a whole. Life is a wonderful beautiful thing that should be chersish accordingly.

Please note: I am not trying to shove my beliefs down anyone's throat. This is just my argument as an intelligent person. I think Christians have a wonderful moral basis (for the most part) and that everyone has the right to live and believe in what you will.

Science: monotheism is a dated kind of thinking. One cannot fully integrate something like this into their life because of the way society is setup now. During the time when Jerusalem was in full bloom, no one had technology or many forms of entertainment like we do today. Science explains that there are many concrete and logical reasons for things, which paints a clear picture of the world around them to those who prefer it. Although a modern religion is somewhat important, it is also equally important for people to realize that they cannot dominate their lives with such things. Many liberals and "new-age" people prefer to use the term agnostic to show their appreciation of God and the world around them. This kind of thinking is probably the closest we will come to full integration of Science and God today.

Science makes my cars go, and my computer run.

Science cures disease and prolongs life.

Science explains natural phenomena.

Science gives reason to the otherwise reasonless.

Science has created prosthetics for people who have lost limbs.

Science has done so much it's disturbingly awesome.

God has done... uh... well, I don't know how to answer that.

Why do people assume God uses some kind of magic? Don't you think that if there was a God, he would know more about science than we do? Just saying. ..

I believe God created the world as we know it and that science can try to explain it from varying viewpoints if one is not a believer in God.

Well if we're going to be anal, I believe science created the world as we know it and still governs it.

HOWEVER, I believe God sparked the Big Bang and thus created science and time! ;)

Everything in this world or universe has a creator. The fact remains that scientist are humans which are not guaranteed 100%. This means that they can make errors or even make something up because of human nature. Yes, things get tested over and over, but nothing is 100%. Too many things in this world to explain so I believe there is a creator. Look at medicine, it helps people yet many makers of medication are being sued because medicine is not guaranteed 100%.

Evolution Fails to Predict the Genetic Complexity

Any scientific theory, which evolution is purported to be, has to be able to predict to be a good theory. But evolution in its’ need to connect mutation in the genome to the massive change needed for evolution incorrectly predicted the direct gene to morphology connection. Only with this connection can small mutations actually have the ability to make massive morphological changes necessary for evolution to be plausible.

The Darwin concept:

One gene – One Protein – One Function

But we are learning more about the genetic package and are finding that contrary to the evolutionist’s wish’s the genetic structure has always been surprisingly resilient. I must mention again the accelerated fruit fly experiments and the extraordinary resilience of the fruit fly genome. I believe that this would be a great falsifiability test for evolution.

What evolutionist say is that evolution is a theory that can absorb all new data and take it in and make it part of the theory. When they say that they are not describing a scientific theory, but a philosophy.

We have recently discovered the incredible complexity of the genome and how it reacts and moves its’ instructions to create the morphology or the phenotype of the organism. It is not a one to one correlation, but the complexity is much beyond that.

http://www.evanwiggs.com/articles/reasons.html#Reason1

Man is god, science is just a tool for studying man.

Therefor, God > Science.

I think the universe exists, and if it was created out of nothing, it was God. And even if it wasn't, it still might be.

There could be a force undefined by science which know as god.I support this as there is know science reasoning that has been proved so far.

Bent proteins have had much interest in science for a couple of decades. Many first heard of them in some rather strange diseases such as the Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease or the Mad Cow disease that was caused by a prion or a badly bent protein. We all wondered how could a bent protein cause morphological change in a brain?

As researchers dove deeper into this issue and looked a past research going back into the 1970s they started seeing that there appeared in cells an incredibly complex dance between the genes and protein and RNA folds to transmit data to assemble extremely complex protein machines in the cell as well as transmit data to assemble cell structures as well as create the macro morphology of an organism. This answered some questions that arose in genetic research where it appeared the genes didn’t always have a one to one correspondence with morphological structure. In fact some genes seemed to be connected to multiple structures and some genes seemed to be unconnected. As it turns out the bent proteins provide another layer of highly organized information in the cell. The appear to be bent in non-random ways based on the molecular structure and the bends are actually a function of physics and not biology. We have discovered around 200 of these protein bends and have seen how they actually provide more information to the cell than the genes themselves.

The folding process has been found to be absolutely necessary for the protein to function in the cell and occurs right out of the ribosome. The folded shape is determined by several factors.

1. Internal covalent bonds such as disulfide bridges between cysteine units in the chains.

2. Hydrogen bonds.

3. Hydrophilic and hydrophobic interaction with the surrounding solvent.

4. The interaction with other with other molecules large and small that help carry on cellular function.

In fact two different proteins can fold into similar shapes and perform the same cellular function. But this is all made possible by a process that is guided. Random folds wouldn’t work. The prions of the Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease prove that. There are protein complexes that provide a chaperone that help the proteins to bend in the proper way, and there are chaperones that help the protein to stay in its proper bend. These chaperones are also responsible for metal ions movement in the cell.

This is something evolutionists may claim as “part of the great universal acid” of their theory, but evolutionary theory actually prevented researchers from discovering these protein machines because of the assumptions built into evolution. Another failure and another nail in the coffin. Scientific American. Everything in this world had to be created and I believe it has a creator.

It is hard to debunk that everything was created. What created the substance to create the earth? What created man? Science is a tool created by man.

Just to reinforce what I am saying, everything had to be created, it did not just happen. People are not 100% accurate, they make mistakes. If people make mistakes and scientist are people, that means scientist make mistakes.

Science is simply a study of how God did it. So all those theories like the big bang are simply explaining how he did it not completely throwing him out the window even if intellectuals think so. (except for evolution that's completely false)

God without science is blind, Science without god is lame!

God is always first, however, you cannot deny that science has been a true attribute to the life we live today. We wouldn't have computers to debate, glasses to see, and thank God for allowing man the gift of curiosity, or else we would never have discovered penicillin. Science in definition is "The study of the physical world and its manifestations, especially by using systematic observation and experiment." Now I can say along with anything the devil can be found in it as well.

god has created the world .god only created us,and inturn we created science we should be thankful to him ,if we don't then it's clear that we are selfish. who knows even you can die this moment at that tin=me you pry to god please save me. so god,god,god.

God! he created us! Science is important but God is much more!