thesometimesaint Posted April 3, 2014 Posted April 3, 2014 I find it strange why so many God fearing and believing folk believe science is the enemy. There seems to be some kind of repulsion to any scientific conclusion that doesn't explicitly name God as the means for creation, or at least the architect. I don't get it. To me science and God seem to go hand in hand. Just because I strongly believe Hawking is way off on is belief in God, doesn't mean he isn't right about a lot of things. In fact he may know more about the nature of God then most of us even if he doesn't realize it. Science is not the enemy. I believe in evolution, the big bang, etc. and they have only strengthened my faith in God. None of the science in the article or videos linked to above is atheist science. In fact, as far as I am concerned there is not such thing as atheist science. People who make statements like that are no less ignorant about the nature of God than Richard Dawkins. Agreed.
The Nehor Posted April 3, 2014 Posted April 3, 2014 So, do you think that without God or any other intelligent agent designing this that one could just take those three things, throw them together and "poof" life pops into existence?Yes, if he set up the conditions right. 1
omni Posted April 3, 2014 Posted April 3, 2014 I find it strange why so many God fearing and believing folk believe science is the enemy. There seems to be some kind of repulsion to any scientific conclusion that doesn't explicitly name God as the means for creation, or at least the architect. I don't get it. To me science and God seem to go hand in hand. Just because I strongly believe Hawking is way off on is belief in God, doesn't mean he isn't right about a lot of things. In fact he may know more about the nature of God then most of us even if he doesn't realize it. Science is not the enemy. I believe in evolution, the big bang, etc. and they have only strengthened my faith in God. None of the science in the article or videos linked to above is atheist science. In fact, as far as I am concerned there is not such thing as atheist science. People who make statements like that are no less ignorant about the nature of God than Richard Dawkins. They are only anti-science when it conflicts with their dogmatic views. Science is good when it can predict the weather for next weekend's day at the beach or warn us of an upcoming hurricane, bad if it indicates our world is warming due to human actions. Biologists are good when when they create new vaccines and cures for illnesses, but all of the sudden don't know what they're talking about when it comes to evolution. Physicists are brilliant when it comes to describing the theory of relativity or putting men on the moon, but are up in the night when describing the Big Bang. 1
thesometimesaint Posted April 3, 2014 Posted April 3, 2014 They are only anti-science when it conflicts with their dogmatic views. Science is good when it can predict the weather for next weekend's day at the beach or warn us of an upcoming hurricane, bad if it indicates our world is warming due to human actions. Biologists are good when when they create new vaccines and cures for illnesses, but all of the sudden don't know what they're talking about when it comes to evolution. Physicists are brilliant when it comes to describing the theory of relativity or putting men on the moon, but are up in the night when describing the Big Bang. There is one good thing about them. They no longer do a Bruno on the people who hold the ideas espouse by him. 1
omni Posted April 3, 2014 Posted April 3, 2014 Haha, I'm going to have to start using that phrase. You better start believing as I tell ya, or I'm gonna do a Bruno on ya!
Rob Osborn Posted April 3, 2014 Posted April 3, 2014 What I'm going to teach my children is that Nature is what we call the rules of the universe - how things just happen to work. One of God's tools allowed for in planning, choosing, and establishing this wonderful world as our School is Nature. Science is what we call our tools and methods of trying to understand how Nature works. I don't know how or in what manner Heavenly Fathered used the tool of nature in preparing a world for us, but I strongly believe that He did. I do know that He understands nature better than we do, but that shouldn't stop us from using Science to try to understand it too. The more we learn from Science, the more we can know a small portion of what God knows. Our Science today is better than is was in the past, and we understand Nature a lot more clearly than we did then. We still have a long way to go, but it's exciting! What' s important is that Heavenly Father had a plan for our Spirits to live in a world that would be exactly what we needed, and whatever tools or methods or processes that may have been utilized for it to get to where it needed to, it's not an accident that we are here and a part of it. Just as revelation by the Spirit, and also through the Prophets is a means by which we can learn what Heavenly Father knows in regards to what we need to do to be happy, Science is a tool by which we can learn a little bit more of what heavenly father knows about how the Universe works. Both are wonderful and useful methods God loves for us to use to become more like Him. I am grateful for them both. I agree. I guess my only point is that mainstream science is atheist and choooses to be awe inspired that all that exists is because of random acts in this universe. I choose to see the hand of God in all things. A stark difference but at least my POV makes sense and answers questions rather than their view which just opens more questions of which they cannot answer.
Rob Osborn Posted April 3, 2014 Posted April 3, 2014 You are not a simpleton don't act like one. E=MC2 M is a function of gravity(a form of E) Time is function of interval of distance between two points of M. Abiogenesis is selective. Randomness has nothing to do with Abiogenesis. So then, answer the question please- Do you believe that gravity, matter and time is all the ingredients for life void of God acting upon it?
Rob Osborn Posted April 3, 2014 Posted April 3, 2014 I find it strange why so many God fearing and believing folk believe science is the enemy. There seems to be some kind of repulsion to any scientific conclusion that doesn't explicitly name God as the means for creation, or at least the architect. I don't get it. To me science and God seem to go hand in hand. Just because I strongly believe Hawking is way off on is belief in God, doesn't mean he isn't right about a lot of things. In fact he may know more about the nature of God then most of us even if he doesn't realize it. Science is not the enemy. I believe in evolution, the big bang, etc. and they have only strengthened my faith in God. None of the science in the article or videos linked to above is atheist science. In fact, as far as I am concerned there is not such thing as atheist science. People who make statements like that are no less ignorant about the nature of God than Richard Dawkins. So, when that mainstream science rambles on and on about why we are here and they never point to God but just random acts in the universe you are okay with that? Thats atheism.
Rob Osborn Posted April 3, 2014 Posted April 3, 2014 Yes, if he set up the conditions right. I guess I too could prove the flying spaghetti monster is real- just let me set up the right conditions. Scientists have no real clue on how to take general laws in nature and use them to create life. Matter combined with energy combined with time do not equate directly into life. You have to insert the most important thing into it still. Thats called "intelligence". We prove this all the time, day after day, month after month, year after year, etc etc.
David T Posted April 4, 2014 Author Posted April 4, 2014 (edited) Science does not make judgment calls on theological issues. It just doesn't. Some otherwise great scientists try to play their hand at theology, and simply are out of their bounds of expertise. One can accept Dawkins as an excellent scientist without giving any credence to his pseudo-theological conclusions pertaining to implications of that science. Just as some otherwise great Church teachers and spiritual leaders when they try their hand to explain a science they didn't specialize in often end up looking very badly to those who understand the science they just destroyed a strawman replica of. Edited April 4, 2014 by David T 4
Rob Osborn Posted April 4, 2014 Posted April 4, 2014 Science does not make judgment calls on theological issues. Some great scientists try to play their hand at theology, and simply are out of their bounds of expertise. One can accept Dawkins as an excellent scientist without giving any credence to his pseudo-theological conclusions pertaining to implications of that science. Judging Dawkins lack of research and understanding of theology I can hardly accept he is much better at science.
David T Posted April 4, 2014 Author Posted April 4, 2014 (edited) So, when that mainstream science rambles on and on about why we are here Science doesn't explain why. It seeks to explain what can be observed concerning the 'how'. The logical implications and predictions of the mechanics of nature that we can observe and test now. Edited April 4, 2014 by David T 2
David T Posted April 4, 2014 Author Posted April 4, 2014 Judging Dawkins lack of research and understanding of theology I can hardly accept he is much better at science. That farmer gets brain surgery wrong when he talks about the details of it, so he must be a lousy farmer. 1
Rob Osborn Posted April 4, 2014 Posted April 4, 2014 That farmer gets brain surgery wrong when he talks about the details of it, so he must be a lousy farmer. So yeah, Dawkins must be a lousy scientist then.
Rob Osborn Posted April 4, 2014 Posted April 4, 2014 Science doesn't explain why. It seeks to explain what can be observed concerning the 'how'. The logical implications and predictions of the mechanics of nature that we can observe and test now. Science tries to explain how it may be possible that all that exists rose from random chaos. Typical atheism
David T Posted April 4, 2014 Author Posted April 4, 2014 This news story of a new understanding of the Moon formation shows that a key claim they make against scientists is just flat wrong/ These scientists saw data that didn't mesh with the old understanding, and dug in to discover why. That resulted in new implications that alter approaches and former conclusions. Some general conclusions remained, but details in timing and process were altered. And this was proclaimed and announced, and this was found to be exciting to scientists. This goes in the face of what many Creationists claim, that why 'clear evidence' of stuff like a Global Flood, and 6,000 year old existence of life on the planet is not broadcast because they are afraid to disrupt the status-quo. Scientists LOVE to be able to disrupt the status-quo if there is actual, plausible, legitimate tested and re-tested sound evidence to support it! They shout substantiated status-quo busting news from the roof-tops! 2
David T Posted April 4, 2014 Author Posted April 4, 2014 (edited) NEW INFORMATION ARISES THAT QUESTIONS STATUS QUO: Actual Scientist:"Cool! Lets test and re-test it to make sure we really have something here, and if so, we just were corrected, and learned more about the Universe! Let's get ready for some paradigm shifts, and adjusting our past idea. Awesome! This is Amazing!" Dogmatist: "Whoever is presenting this stupid information is a deluded idiot and an enemy to Truth! If Scientists really wanted Truth, they would listen to me. Truth about the world, truth about the world, we have truth about the world, and need no more truth about the world." Edited April 4, 2014 by David T 1
Wanderer7 Posted April 4, 2014 Posted April 4, 2014 You know the chemical difference between hemoglobin and chlorophyll? Hemoglobin uses one atom of Iron while chlorophyll uses one atom of magnesium. That's ONE difference between them, yes. There are actually a lot of differences between chemical structure between the proteins. The functional porphyrin rings are similar in structure, and one uses Fe2+ (actually four Fe2+ per hemoglobin) and the other uses Mg2+ (1 per chlorophyll), it's true, but there are a few other differences. Plus there are multiple types of chlorophyll. 1
Wanderer7 Posted April 4, 2014 Posted April 4, 2014 Science tries to explain how it may be possible that all that exists rose from random chaos. Typical atheismSOME scientists may try to do this, but science per se does not. There are many scientists with strong religious beliefs. Even Einstein was religious. 2
MiserereNobis Posted April 4, 2014 Posted April 4, 2014 I'll link to this book yet again: The Mystical Writings of the World's Great Physicists It is an anthology of writings by the founders of modern physics (almost all are Nobel prize winners) that show their religious/mystical bent. These guys were NOT atheists. For the most part they were not into organized religion, but they all not only believed in spirit and mysticism, most of them had had mystical experiences. It is fascinating to read their words (remember, it is an anthology) in context of the religion vs. science debate. 3
strappinglad Posted April 4, 2014 Posted April 4, 2014 (edited) Do they have any examples of two planets colliding and forming another planet and/or moon ? Do they have any observations of planet collisions? All of the statements are about the unobservable past and are heavy on theory and imagination. Yet the statements are made as if they were fact. They even state that the collision happened 100 million years after the solar system formed give or take 30 million years. But there is still disagreement as to how the solar system formed so now what? I eagerly await the time lapse photos of planet formation. I recognize that it supposedly takes millions if not billions of years to do , but with all the universe to look at , there should be snapshots of the various evolutionary shapes of formation found as we see back in time. The record of surprises found between predictions and actual observations by satellites visiting our solar system's planets and moons is large . Computer simulations, even 250 trial and tinker simulations can be outvalued by one actual observation. Edited April 4, 2014 by strappinglad
cdowis Posted April 4, 2014 Posted April 4, 2014 (edited) I'm not mistaken. Whatever his hobby horse is he is an Atheist. Actually Hawking was the first to unify Einsteins Theory of Relativity, and the probabilistic's of Quantum Mechanics. Ps. Unlike religious fundamentalists Hawking admits when he is wrong. He lost a standing bet that the Higgs Boson didn't exist. Therefore would never be found. Who is talking about Hawkin?? It appears that you have a reading comprehension issue. Please re-read my post..... slowly. Edited April 4, 2014 by cdowis
rodheadlee Posted April 4, 2014 Posted April 4, 2014 This is seriously fascinating stuff. Watch the videos, especially the last one illustrating the impact of Theia and Earth Prime, leading to the formation of a New Earth and it's moon - and it's capacity for life.http://www.space.com/25331-moon-age-revealed-lunar-mystery.htmlOh man, everybody knows the moon used to belong to Minerva. The planet that used to be where the asteroid belt is. When Minerva blew up and went Pluto on us we captured her moon. What is so special about being atomically identical? The whole Universe is made of the same stuff, sheesh.
Grudunza Posted April 4, 2014 Posted April 4, 2014 (edited) Who is talking about Hawkin?? It appears that you have a reading comprehension issue. Please re-read my post..... slowly.cdowis, I believe that back on page 1 (post #19), you were referring to Dawkins in your reply, but the person you replied to was referring to Hawking. Thus the confusion. Edited April 4, 2014 by Grudunza
mfbukowski Posted April 4, 2014 Posted April 4, 2014 So, when that mainstream science rambles on and on about why we are here and they never point to God but just random acts in the universe you are okay with that? Thats atheism.When my doctor talks to me about my blood pressure and cholesterol and how to bring both down, he never mentions God either. I guess that makes him an atheist. 1
Recommended Posts