CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
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.
I will ask you this: how big is the universe? Isn't it infinite, according to most scientists? Tell me, have you ever measured how big it is? Then how do you know it is infinite? You believe that the universe is infinite without actually knowing how big it actually is. Sounds to me like science is based on faith as well. :)
-----
to believe in something without circumstantial evidence to support it.
-----
You can never be completely sure that any scientific theory is true anyways. Just because there is no evidence to contradict one does not mean that there may be evidence in the future to contradict it.
First, not once did I mention that the Universe is infinite. I did not even imply that. Einestein claims that the universe is constantly expanding, but that it has boundries. Secondly, if you are to imply that the Universe isn't imense, just becuase you haven't seen then I have a questions for you;
1.By your own logic, Why believe in a God you can't see, or hear?
Sounds to me like science is based on faith as well. :)
You would be wrong.
While if you're watching the science channel, and it's some special about the Universe, you may hear the word "infinite" thrown around,
this is because it's tv though. In a classroom or lab, no self-respecting scientist would use such a silly term.
We know that "infinite" is impossible,
a couple things scientists do believe are,
The Universe folds in on itself, so if you were going in what you thought was a straight line at the speed of light for trillions and trillions of years, you would eventually end up where you started,
by then of course everything would be different, so even at the speed of light it would appear infinite,
Others don't believe it folds in on itself, but is limited.
Currently we know it is expanding, some believe it will collapse in on itself again, others think it will just keep going on forever,
whatever the correct theory though,
none of them involve infinity, simply numbers we cannot yet imagine.
Well, we doesn't necessarily assume any group of people other than those who know infinity is impossible. This could include plumbers, hygenists, scuba divers, etc.
But I meant people in general. As in it's general knowledge.
Well, regardless of where he said it, I assure you Stephen Hawking knows that it is impossible for something to both be expanding and infinite at the same time. What is meant is that there is no limit to it's potential expansion perhaps, but at any time anything can be measured (assuming the means are available) and given a number that says how big it is, and at of course you can always add a 0 to any number no matter how big it is,
therefore, there is no such thing as "infinite." Which he knows.
That's what I'm saying.
And again with the Steady State Theory. That theory requires constant creation,
if something is added, then obviously whatever existed before something was added was not "infinite" as that thing added would have already been there, and so any creation within something that is already infinite is impossible.
Making the constant creation necessary for the Steady State Theory impossible.
Again, they don't mean infinite literally, as infinity is impossible.
I watched an hour special with Stephen Hawking describing in what event time travel would be possible, and he specifically said that infinity doesn't exist.
So yeah, it exists if you change the definition, as he may have at some point. But speaking of the agreed definition of the term, it is self-contradicting.
I watched an hour special with Stephen Hawking describing in what event time travel would be possible, and he specifically said that infinity doesn't exist.
Finite means some matter with limitation. If there is no limit to the expansion or increase of some matter, what limit is there other than a technical limit from one point of reference? In essence, what is infinite cannot be defined or measured, and the volume of something that is expanding cannot be defined (except at one point) until it stops. If the universe will not cease its expansion, it may be called infinite.
Regardless, when the universe is referred to as infinite, it is actually suggested that it is expanding without limitation. Due to the ambiguity, I deem it to be a poor choice of words. Is it actually expanding without limitation? I do not know for certain, and neither does anybody else for that matter, which is why I do not immediately concur with Mr. Hawking. The greatest hypocrisy in modern science, I believe, is argument over theoretical physics.
If there is no limit to the expansion or increase of some matter, what limit is there other than a technical limit from one point of reference? In essence, what is infinite cannot be defined or measured
If something can be measured at any point in time it cannot be said to be infinite in the sense that is being argued here.
If you change the definition to that which is not finite, than just about everything is infinite since we don't have absolute knowledge of anything being finite... example if the universe is expanding at approaching the speed of light are all particles in it becoming larger? Hence not finite?
Maybe you meant to clarify Hawking's statement of an "infinite" universe as one expanding? That's sort of what I was saying though.
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.
As you can see, science requires some sentient being. The Universe is not "aware" in any way, and as far as we know, the conditions under which the big bang occured would have been impossible for any sentient being to have existed in, much less to have facilitated.
Therefore, while our understanding of the big bang is a result of science, the big bang itself has 0 to do with science.
As you can see, science requires some sentient being.Sentient being?????.Do you think for rising of the sun you need a sentient being........comets clashing is because of a sentient being.......
... are you doing this on purpose to be annoying, or do you really not understand what science means? Science is the act of studying and trying to figure things out. The sun rising is not science. Stars have existed for billions upon billions of years, all "rising" from the perspective of trillions upon trillions of planets throughout the Universe.
This is not "science" it is only the state of the Universe. When we, a sentient being, do things like measure color differences in various stars to determine the chemical make-up, when we time their movements across the night sky, that is science. Things simply doing what they naturally do is not science. Science by definition is a thinking thing trying to figure out something that naturally occurs. You cannot have science without some being that thinks.
I'm saying creation is magic... and doesn't exist, and all religion says someone "created" stuff, whether they opt into the creationism theory, an intelligen design theory, or like the Mormons, simply choose to say "god has not yet revealed the answer."
For the record, we don't believe God created the earth from nothing, but that he used elements that where already there. So how is that magic?
the Mormons, simply choose to say "god has not yet revealed the answer."
We believe that God Is omniscient. Therefore it's only logical to assume that it's impossible for us to know everything that God knows in this life. I believe part of his plan is for us to learn things. It would be impossible for us to learn everything God knows here on earth.
I wasn't a personal attack Jake, just a statement. So don't feel you have to take it as one, of course you can, that's understandable as well.
At any rate, I find that position much more defensible than creation from nothing. So congratulation, rare up vote on a god v. science debate from me.
However, the question remains then, why would a god be necessary to make us from the available elements, if nothing was needed to create the creator from available elements? But I know, he wasn't created, just is. I would say if something so much more powerful, intelligent, and bigger than us could "just be" then why couldn't we - and on the debate would go until we die...
I only add that last paragraph to stave off a theological debate on the existance of a god ;)
However, the question remains then, why would a god be necessary to make us from the available elements, if nothing was needed to create the creator from available elements? But I know, he wasn't created, just is.
Nope, wrong again. Of course we don't think God just came up from nothing. We believe he came from a different planet and had parents. But we don't claim to have all the details.
Science is a generalised concept to encapsulate many individual entities. He's right in saying that "science" itself didn't create the earth; it was a process that occured which we encapsulate within the concept of science. The big bang occured, which led to the eventual creation of the universe. The big bang is a scientific theory. So, one of the scientific theories led to the earth's creation, not science itself.
I'm a lady, but thank you for the defense! You summarized it perfectly; When we decided upon the word "blue", we didn't cause the sky to become a color, we merely described it; science is how we describe our world, not the nature or the cause of it. We created science; we did not create the world.
In social science, a social relation or social interaction refers to a relationship between two (i.e. a dyad), three (i.e. a triad) or more individuals (e.g. a social group).
Supporting Evidence:
exam king
(www.real-testking.com)
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......
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 has discoverd things like fossiles of early humans and apes proving evoulition plus if you look at older pictures of some animals they have changed
I like to believe the big bang theory, of about how the Earth was created from rocks and other materials then compacted to form the round shape it has today, not the religous belief in bibles of about how God created Earth from DUST.
Since nobody can answer either question, what made the Higgs Boson particle and what made god, we can only keep searching for answers
.
It doesnt matter if every search and every experiment and finding that science does is worthless or not, I dont need a Higgs Boson, or a any bosons to know that all knowing, all powerful and all loving creators arent likely to be homophobic sexist bullies!
The consensus is some god is our father, what if science was called a father too
.
One is here everyday making our lives better thru technology, and one is a dead beat no show father who is playing Annie with his tomorrow, tommorrow, I’ll see ya tomorrow routine!
The SAD consensus is, No, not zeus or aphrodite, but a homophobic sexist who threatens punishment if you dont believe and kiss his up to him!
DevientGenie 7:72–Thou can tripith and fall in any squasre mile in this country and hit the ground where a religious claiming pedophile hath walked before.
I’d like to give a Big Higgs Boson shout out to Science….WE LOVE YOU….Thank You for proving your points without crucifing anyone!
Also a big thanks to our sponsors, Check and Mate!
SCIENCE WINS! (Now Say It Like Raden in Mortal Combat)
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. ..
At least one person in this debate is seeing when they look...
We're not here to test the validity of either, independently of the other. The parameters of the debate are set. Consider what is known about God and compare it to what is known about Science.
Step one is whether or not God (if it does exist) could create a universe... Yes, because it's all powerful, all knowing, etc... and whether science could create a universe... SCIENCE IS A METHOD, NOT A THING THAT CAN CREATE!!!
So, JakeJ is finally saying something that makes sense. ;P
Just because someone was able to make observations and come up with a theory doesn't mean that person is responsible for the actions that occurred.
The Big Bang would have happened regardless of whether or not someone thought of it.
I'm not really sure I like this debate at all though, because it's intended to pit religion against science, and this usually tends to hurt our society because people view certain scientific theories as somehow in opposition to religion (a.k.a. big bang theory, or evolution) when in reality they have nothing to do with each other.
However, as far as ideas go, the scientific method has advanced us much further than a society then our beliefs in God(s).
The person he was arguing against was trying to argue that science created the universe, when it's nature that causes things to happen and science that describes these natural phenomenon.
On this point I agree with bradf0rd, but for the sake of argument I wanted to challenge him on a different point.
I have a serious and uninteresting answer for you:
Considering the fact that it created the whole universe, and is still going on today... yes you could say it was big.
And considering the term big bang is a misnomer, and what really happened was an expansion (which as I said can still be observed) then no it didn't expand.
In addition, whether we can observe it directly or not, we are still feeling the its effects and therefore it definitely occurred. Even if we couldn't observe it though (directly or indirectly) it still would have happened because the laws of nature do not stop working just because no one is watching.
Do you disagree with my assertion about the scientific method's superiority over a belief in god?
If science is a tool for man to study man, and you already said man is god, then science is studying god. Science supports evolutionary theory. Science cannot support both because they are opposing forces. Making science hypocritical. New content is discovered and created in science daily. whereas the bible hasn't been revised or edited in nearly 2000 years. making the bible obsolete and outdated. God killed roughly 1800 people in the bible compared to the devil which allegedly killed 3.
No, Science isn't a person, or a thing that does something, science, like I've said, is nothing more than a tool. It's a function of the human mind, in other words.
The human mind supports evolution via a function. "New" content is found via a function of the mind. The Bible was also a human invention. Hence, man is god. The Bible is less outdated than the last scientific theory because the Bible isn't a theory, it's a book. People may take it as a theory, sure, but that doesn't mean it is one... does it?
It all comes down to personal opinion. I think god is a theory and you dont oh well. science has many theories but god only has one. "You shalt worship no other god"
closed minded. whereas science can bend and flex to any theory or idea.
Fundamental enquiries into the nature of social relations are to be found in the work of the classical sociologists, for instance, in Max Weber's theory of social action.
I would say that science explains the world a little better than than the bible does. Now I know that that may be a matter of opinion, but I'm sure that most rational people would agree.
Belief is great, but this is a debate site. Debate entails offering arguments supported by evidence. You seem to suggest that one cannot be a believer in science and god at the same time. Any support for this?
well, unbeliever people just looking for logical explanations about the topics which are related with god. But they usually cant find.
Galaxy is very very big system in which everything working very balanced(regulated). Even in the world is everything very good balanced. And who did regulate everything ? in my opinion :Of course there is a god! ..
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.
I believe that God created science to get a more precise view in life, but people believe that they can prove that he doesn't exist because of atoms and cells, isn't it easy to say that that is what God created for us to understand. He is not just gonna give us an easy trip to the mountain, we ourselves have to climb it in order to enjoy our success. What I mean by that is that most likely God would not wish to declare that he is real but allow us to believe and discover on our own and to put our faith in him.
God is not a person, who sits else where and rule universe. he is available to us in invisible astro physical forces. they are eternal. science is a small tool to prove certain manipulations like gravity. science came into existence recently . no god means know god
Science has helped and hurt us throughout the years, but eventually man-kind is going to come across something they can't explain, if they haven't already.
I wish more Christians would be as rational as you. In no way should science be thought of as hostile to religion, and those Christians who reject science in because they can't understand the idea of metaphors, are doing a disservice to the entire world by standing in the way of knowledge.
I have been saying almost exactly what he said for some time now, and I hear no compliments from you. Quite the opposite actually. Maybe you just don't like me. (;
That's not what I'm saying at all. Something like 40% of the people in the U.S. think that the earth is about 6,000 years old (because apparently that's what the Bible says).
I have been saying almost exactly what he said for some time now, and I hear no compliments from you. Quite the opposite actually. Maybe you just don't like me. (;
Have you changed your views in the last couple months?
You are a creationist, are you not?
Creationism is totally irrational, and harmful to society in that it undermines science.
Also, you do occasionally make points that I agree with, and when I see them I don't hesitate to upvote you.
I haven't changed my views. I believe like he said about God and the big bang theory. That theory is undeniable because everything in the solar system is moving apart and had to start together.
That doesn't contradict my belief that god created the world.
But do you believe that he created it out of nowhere or through natural methods that we can study?
For example when scientists study the creation of the solar system, part of that has to do with the creation of planets, and how heavy matter orbiting around the sun came together to form objects that are now either planets or moons.
Does your belief in God interfere with your ability to accept the validity of their research in this respect?
Or how about the age of the universe, and the age of the earth itself, which has been determined through numerous different sources to be just over 4 billion years old?
How about the diversity of life?
Do you think that god created people and animals from nothing and put them on the earth, or that through natural processes we evolved from simpler organisms into what we are today?
I'm sorry for giving you all these questions about your beliefs, but I need to understand to what degree your religion influences your ideas of science.
Many people in this country reject those theories and scientific ideas that have to do with our origins because they feel that the conclusions based on the available evidence contradict the Bible. Sometimes these people will go through a lot of trouble to discredit science in these fields because of their religious beliefs, and more often than not they are dishonest in their attacks.
So here is the basic question I am getting at: do you think that God actively has interfered with our creation, or that he is more like a watchmaker that created the universe and then tweaked here and there?
So here is the basic question I am getting at: do you think that God actively has interfered with our creation, or that he is more like a watchmaker that created the universe and then tweaked here and there?
We don't think God said poof with a magic wand. We believe that he used elements that where already there. Does that answer the question?
I just had almost the same discussion with David.
As for the age of the earth and the evolution of animals I'm not sure, not that I don't care to learn, I do. I stand by all of the beliefs of my religion because I have a true testimony of it and it's very important to me. That is not something most people understand. Most people just don't believe that you can know anything for sure spiritually, but I do.
Social relations, derived from individual agency, form the basis of the social structure. To this extent social relations are always the basic object of analysis for social scientists.
Supporting Evidence:
70-680 test
(www.real-testking.com)
If you were to believe in God and the bible you would know that God is here and still is, but if the world is dying it doesn't matter, because the afterlife is what is important.
Your statement doesn't add anything to the argument anyhow
If you were to believe in God and the bible you would know that God is here and still is, but if the world is dying it doesn't matter, because the afterlife is what is important.
That's why religion can be a cancer to humanity, it deludes people into inaction when the world dies around them.
the problem with that theory is that the bible, your one source of evidence, doesn't state that it happened that way. There is no explosion described in the bible. There is no explanation in the bible for an expanding universe. In the bible, humans did not evolve, they were created as is in gods image. Seems that you don't agree with your holy source of evidence?
I see no problem in my beliefs because I don't take the Bible as a literal history of the Earth and everything. Most of it is just stories and allegories.
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%.
Everything has a creator? Great, who or what created your god then? We can all agree that the bible was written by humans, and yet you suggest that because something is created by humans, it can be just made up. Exactly. The bible can be made up. You attack the very advances in medicine that have most likely contributed to your life in countless time. Scientific advances in medicine have allowed us to live longer, healthier lives AS A SPECIES.
I think you are missing his point. Something perfect does not need a creator. Medicine isn't perfect Man made medicine. Man Isn't perfect God made Man. God is perfect and always was.
I think you are missing his point. Something perfect does not need a creator. Medicine isn't perfect Man made medicine. Man Isn't perfect God made Man. God is perfect and always was.
If he said:
Everything in the world/universe needs a creator
Then god is included in that as part of the universe.
The universe as we understand it is everything, that is what a universe means. The idea of a multiverse is conjecture at this point and there can be nothing outside the universe.
So the logical syllogism is:
Everything in the universe needs a creator
God is in the universe
God needs a creator
The only way you can invalidate this is to defeat the premises (not everything needs a creator? we have established beyond conjecture that we are in a multiverse?).
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.
That is a valid point. But that one point does not derail the whole theory simply because we do not yet understand some of the natural processes that drove it forward. Also I must point out that in scientific terms, the word theory refers to a hypothesis that has been continually tested and proven accurate. As of now, there is an enormous amount of evidence supporting evolutionary theory. If an equal or greater amount of evidence should be presented contrary to evolutionary theory, we would strongly question it's validity or drop it altogether. Obviously that hasn't happened, and to be completely objective (as all scientists should be) we must lean on the side of greatest evidence which at the present time is for evolution. You will have to do more than point out a few inconsistencies to derail the whole theory.
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.
Fundamental enquiries into the nature of social relations are to be found in the work of the classical sociologists, for instance, in Max Weber's theory of social action.
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 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.
What is the probability of the earth beginning by chance? All of the detail and life that was put into the world did not happen by chance.The fact that this Big Bang "THEORY" (meaning not prove or fact) is ruling what we believe is ridiculous.
No one know who created this world......and how can one man says that creation this is god.......did he saw while creating ? no. its a belief frnds not more than that...man just talks his assumption dats all......empty mind think a lot...so their is nothing like this god VS science..they both are one...if u think deeply u all will get answer.
Science does not give the true essence of nature. Science is just a language that was created to be able to predict the future and understand the natural world better but not its authentic essence. Theories are devised from models, and not from the true units of nature. When theories are devised, assumptions are made, and hence those theories are not universal. They only aim to understand a specific pattern of nature and not the whole. If we still have not seeing a true picture of an atom and not models, then we still do not know the true essence of nature. Science aims to get the patterns of God but for as long as we use our man-made mathematics and not the mathematics of God, we will never understand Him nor derive an equation to model his workings. The bottom line is He is God of power and nothing can go beyond Him.
Yea! More religious bile!! First you must prove god exists, then that he is capable and indeed break the laws of physics. Good luck. But from what I've seen so far from you, I'm not going to hold my breath. Evidence and support are words beyond you it seems
Why does it always have to God VS Science? Or Faith VS Evidence? I feel that Science could explain God and creationism, but most people don't like that idea because God is supernatual and the world is natural. God cannot necessarily be proven by worldly evidence, rather, by supernatural evidence. If God is there, why doesn't he just show himself? Because then life would be pointless. This life on earth is short, and we can choose to live in ignorance and deny him, and forever be sorry, or, we can accept him and be eternally thankful for what he has done for us. I honestly feel terrible for Atheists. They are using logic to prove that God can't exist. But in the end, it is their ignorance and obstinance that ends up costing them. I have no interest in hearing you Atheists tell me how stupid and foolish I sound.
When monotheistic religions were created, it really had nothing to do with monotheism. Behind every religion, not just monotheistic ones, there are moral values. The "God" comes in to keep people from thinking "Why should I do all this stuff that they're telling me? What's keeping me from running of and being a bad person?" God is how the religions answer, and keep people from doing bad things by saying God will punish them. It's time that we let go of our belief in a God and be good to others because we care, not because we have to.
Moreover, science is more beautiful than anything in the bible. As Ann Druyan said, the Garden of Eden was more like a super-max prison with 24-hour surveillance. The cosmos, however, is pure beauty. Instead of turning to a god for amazement, just look around you. It's all really there, every planet and every star. You have to stop and think about it; about the vast complexity of space. Every living thing is a triumph of evolution. Each of us is a product of 400 million years of natural selection.
Knowing all of this, there is no need for a god. We have the cosmos, and we have our moral values that can exist without bribery. There have been thousands of confident religions and theologies on this planet, and they all contradict each other. There are also many sciences, but they coincide perfectly and are all unified. Science created us, we created our vision of god. Now we must let that vision go, and pay our respects to the truth.
What do you consider evidence? Are you claiming that science is 100% accurate? Well, who created science? Are humans who are scientist perfect? Do scientist make mistakes? So is it possible that scientist can lie about what they found? Afterall, they are human.
I don't think anyone is claiming that scientists are perfect, but science itself is by nature a self correcting process in that if a scientist does make a mistake (or straight out lies) the error will be caught by other members of the scientific community long before it becomes an accepted and well supported theory. (such as evolution or the big bang). These are not some crackpot ideas dreamed up by some nerd in his mom's basement. They are have been tested time and time again and consistently have been proven to be accurate.
Yes, everything around is evidence which clearly states that there is a creator. Scientist are not 100 % accuarate because they are people who make common errors. Science could not exist before anybody's existence because it is a tool that man made and man discovered. THIS DOCTRINE OF DELUSION HAS BECOME THE GENERAL THEME OF MODERN SO-CALLED SCIENCE, and is therefore no longer true science, but pure, imaginary, evolutionary bunk! Evolution is now referred to as the "great principle" of biology. But a principle, according to the dictionary, is a foundation truth, or fact, the basis of other truths. And if you know anything about evolution at all, you know it has never been proven to be either a truth or a fact, much less the foundation or the basis of other truths. Everything on this earth or universe had to be created, it just did not happen.
Something that can be tested to be accurate and is the foundation for proof and therefore belief.
"Are you claiming that science is 100% accurate?"
No one has ever claimed that science is 100% accurate. However, when discrepancies are found in a theory, they are tested as false and the theory improved upon.
You seem to found a lack of belief in scientific methods because those methods were created by fallible people. The very same can and should be said of your bible.
Spot on . Science can not be in conflict with God because science is what he used to make the universe function. We as humans study his work without knowing every single aspect of it. For we are incapable of seeing every point in time and examining every single point in the universe we live in.
What created everything? he is everything you dont see.if you think science is better then you must consider this.how was the world made?is there anything like heaven or earth?is there eternity?
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.