Who’s The One That Believes In Fairy-Tales?

Frequently, you go stumbling through the Internet and see some web sites thinking they are the grand master of intellect.  They proceed to ridicule and minimize those of religion, and then by a very ignorant and vague series of “proofs” proceed to demonstrate the “superiority” of the scientist or atheist.

I find these comparisons quite humorous.  They say ignorance is bliss, but those trying to “prove” those of religion are the ignorant ones brings me the most laughs.

Since those of the scientific community like to use facts to “prove” their case, let’s do so here:

Move Along, nothing to see here.

The scientific community says the universe, as we know it, started with a big bang.  Unfortunately they don’t explain how it happened, why it happened, and what brought it about.  They also lack the ability to explain what was before.  So far, a believer in the divine has no problem with HOW the universe came into being.  They just simply say it was part of a grand plan by a grand intelligence.

The scientific community says intelligence couldn’t possibly be the author of such specific order, beauty, and majesty.  It’s all accidental, or coincidence.

Let’s concentrate on our own solar system.  Science says it’s all a great big series of coincidences.  Let’s cover these “coincidences”:

  • The location of the solar system.  It’s on an outer arm of the Milky Way galaxy in a relatively calm location, away from star birth, far away from the chaos and radiation of the galactic center.  It’s far away from violent gamma-ray bursts and other sources of deadly high energy radiation.  Interstellar traffic is also calm.  Being out so far also means a lower velocity of orbit around the galactic center.  The solar system is pretty well protected.
  • Sol, Our Sun

    The Sun.  Our star, Sol, is a magnificently tame and stable star with a fairly long and stable life span and a much smaller radiation output and relatively calm demeanor compared to other smaller and larger stars.  Perfect for cultivating life.

  • The system itself.  Science is observing more and more planets around stars and so far has not found anything even resembling our solar system.  It’s almost as if our solar system was the result of design.  Typical systems have their gas giants close to the star and most planets are in quite eccentric orbits.  Our solar system has remarkably stable planetary orbits with the planets arranged in a “convenient” order of size, which has the side effect of protecting the third planet.
  • The Earth is very unusual.  It has a moon exactly one tenth the size of its planet (a veritable impossibility), and its orbit and distance is perfect for maintaining just enough tidal forces on the earth to keep it temperate enough for life.  These tidal forces help with the internal core to constantly generate an unusually strong magnetic field, which protects its inhabitants from stellar and interstellar radiation, and is usually reserved for gas giants.  These tidal forces also churn the oceans to generate flowing currents, which cause air currents, which cause hot and cold areas to be cooled and heated respectively, thus tempering the climate.
  • Ocean Currents

    The Earth’s continental positioning “coincidentally” allow for the tidal oceanic currents to flow around the earth in a beneficial manner, which also causes atmospheric currents to flow in a beneficial manner as well.  If the continents were in a different position, then the oceanic currents would stop and the jet stream would greatly change its course resulting in very hot and very cold localized regions and almost no temperate zones, as well as out of control weather.

  • The Earth just happens to be in exactly the right orbital distance from its star for these temperate and life giving conditions to exist.  Of course, all purely coincidental.  Any closer and the Earth cooks.  Any farther, and the Earth freezes.  Note, this distance is measured in millions of miles, not feet.
  • Back to the Moon.  It’s tidal forces, keep the Earth’s mantle and core hot.  This causes land to be renewed, rain to fall, carbon to be broken down by the oceans.
  • The life itself is quite “coincidental” as well.  You have plants, from trees, to algae, that process carbon-dioxide and turn it into oxygen.  Quite a “coincidental” symbiotic relationship to the other “accidental” forms of life which take in oxygen and expel carbon-dioxide.
  • Then there is the size of the planet Earth.  Any larger and gravity would overwhelm the ability of life to stand upright, and make chemical processes more difficult in almost every aspect from volcanism to photosynthesis.  Any smaller, and our atmosphere disappears, and the ability to maintain a constant livable climate also disappears.
  • Oh, let’s now consider the unusually diverse number of minerals and chemicals at our disposal.  Scientific observations have shown that single minerals and chemicals tend to congregate on a per planet basis, usually based upon their weight.  Yet, we have everything from gold to hydrogen on our planet.  We even have the benefits of fossil fuels as if someone knew we’d need them.
  • The land to water ratio also happens to be perfect, or “coincidental”.  Too much water and storms take control and wreak constant chaos.  Too much land and temperatures rise without enough cool air to control it.
  • Oh, then there’s the tilt of the planet causing seasons, which make for excellent ways to grow crops and renew the land.  They cause rain and snow to fall, erosion to happen.  Which nourishes the oceans and nourishes the land.  This also helps with maintaining the climate.
  • Then you have the variety of life.  Science claims it’s all accidental, and all “evolved” from one single organism.  Yet, science can’t seem to show HOW it happened.

Ask any mathematician about the beauty of the mathematics involved with the various objects in the solar system, especially the Earth and Moon.

I find it humorous that the scientific community, which claims things don’t exist unless they can be reproduced in a laboratory, yet accepts so many “theories” as fact without this reproducible result.  Einstein had relativity to explain the very large, but it fails to explain the very small.  You have quantum mechanics which attempts to explain the very small, but falls apart with the very large.  Nevertheless, both cannot truly explain the universe around us.  They are just convenient explanations that “fit” for our needs.

I find it laughable when these “geniuses” fill in blanks for things they do not understand and then people build their lives around it trying to prove it is true, or end up realizing they wasted their lives on a theory that was a lie.  Does “dark matter” mean anything to anyone??

Scientific Theory

As I see it, I see far more evidence in the environment around us, both on Earth and off, that not only overwhelmingly proves that a grand intelligence was behind its planning, but that there is also great beauty in it not just chaotic perfection.  To see people ignore the obvious and say there’s no such thing as a God shows me not only a closed mind, but one incapable of just looking and seeing the truth of it before their very eyes.  Everything from the genius of life and its complexity to the genius that organized the solar system to be a home for us, is more than obvious to the eye.  You can see it.  You can feel it.  You can smell it.  You can eat it.

It’s not magic or hocus-pocus that is God.  God, is the grand architect.  Everything you consider as “science” he created.  Those magnificent laws in all of their perfection and mathematical beauty came from God.

How can anyone see the veritable number of so-called “coincidences” that resulted in this Earth being the grand location for life and deny it all being part of an intelligent design is just fooling themselves.  What science is learning is that for this to truly happen accidentally is even more and more impossible.  The odds are against them.  It would have be the culmination of trillions of “coincidences”, all with incredible odds in and of themselves, to achieve what we now enjoy.

Sure, there are some religious people without any understanding of the beauty and intelligence of God, and think him to be some sort of “magical” being.  God is perfect.  Perfect knowledge, perfect in exercising that knowledge which gives him great power, yet he does it out of perfect love.  Quite unusual for someone with absolute power.  Imagine, knowing all of the secrets of the universe.  This alone causes a great paradox for science.  If science were to know absolutely everything about the universe, both big and small, life and mineral, energetic and dormant, man and woman, they would be as God.

The paradox being in order to prove there is not a God, you must become God to do so.

Science, hasn’t been able to disprove God.  They have only been able to expose those with false beliefs in a false God.  Even the Bible itself shows such things happening.  To disprove a “religion” does not disprove the existence of God.  Doing so is impossible.

This was purely an accident.

However, one cannot expect to prove the existence as well, if the one insisting on proof refuses to see with their own eyes the truth of it all exposed to them plainly day after day.  The order of things cannot help but prove the existence of an intelligence behind its design.  Look at how much intelligence is merely trying to grasp its understanding now.

16 Responses to “Who’s The One That Believes In Fairy-Tales?”

  1. You know, I’ve always thought that it took more faith to be a Big Bang/Darwinist than to believe in Intelligent Design.

  2. [this is good] It’s worse than that.  It’s blind fanaticism.  Look at the “Global Warming” crowd.  They go against their own “teachings” when attempting to claim “the debate is over”, especially since it (the “debate”) never happened and it involves scientific data to the contrary.  The best way to keep a lie alive is to shield it from debate and open discussion.The same goes for Darwinism.  In fact, Darwinism has such a poor scientific basis (real science) that even atheist scientists are raising questions about Darwinism.  Mainly the fact that species or phylum “evolve” from others.  Evidence seems to suggest that fossils are merely extinct species, and not the origin of modern species.  The Galapagos “evidence” frequently cited by Darwinists in relation to finches, only shows a species adapts to its environment, not that the species changes into another.All of the so-called “missing-link evidence” Darwinists cite all the time have actually been proved to be hoaxes.  In fact, despite the exposed hoaxes, many school text books still use them as a means of “proof”. May favorite is the so-called similarity of embryos of all species.  This is a lie, and has been proved as such.  Yet the hoax was so elaborately executed, that the drawings and such are just too good to throw away.I recommend you read Ann Coulter’s book “Godless:  The Church of Liberalism”.  It’s a funny and fascinating read.  Also, see Ben Stein’s “Expelled”.  A great eye opener into the liberal church of science vs. real science.  My favorite is “life came from crystals”. 

  3. Who made God?

  4. Think of the concept of “eternal”.The idea of “faith” involves learning about what is revealed through prophets (personal witnesses), applying the concepts and tests (yes, testing God and his teachings), and if the promises made about the teachings and lifestyle show them to be correct, then it gives you a reason to have faith that they came from a valid source.  There is a difference between faith and blind fanaticism.  Far too many unfamiliar with faith do not understand the differences.  Sadly, too many claiming faith also do not understand.A God who is too cowardly to be tested is no God of mine.  I can see how the lack of following things as simple as the Ten Commandments, for example, has resulted in broken families and broken marriages.  It has resulted in fallen governments and losses of freedom.  The more you learn about God, the more you realize that his laws are not restrictive, but actually give you more freedom.  It’s like the string on a kite.  Just enough law to give you direction and it actually keeps you aloft.  A rope (too much restrictions) you lose freedom and cannot fly.  No string at all and you flounder and fall.  The string is guidance and direction, it doesn’t hold you back.So how does this apply to your question (regardless if asked in malice or sincerity)?  We only know as much as he has told us, and for me, what he has told us has been demonstrated to actually work and make us happy.  Keeping in mind if we do it as he requested and not use it for acquisition of power and authority (dark ages).My church teaches somewhat about this question, but it is considered too sacred for public discussion.  Nevertheless, the word “eternal” is sufficient to answer such a question as there was no beginning and no end.  Things change and transform, but “eternal” means “eternal”.Think of it this way:If you send a child to school and attempt to teach them calculus before the basic math and algebra, how do you expect them to have a proper perspective on how to understand and learn calculus?  The same goes for God.  He’s given us enough information that the least of us on the Earth is capable of comprehending and understanding.  It’s more important to obey and understand the basics before the more difficult can be comprehended and grasped.The best way to answer that question starts by actually making an honest and sincere effort to ask God if he actually exists first.  This is basic “math”.  Next, show him you really want an answer by applying (to the best of your ability) his teachings to your life.  This is “algebra”.  Once you see and comprehend the results of the changes in your life, means you now understand and are ready for the answer.  Although, a change of heart and attitude is generally an excellent example he’s real, but some people need more.  The “answer” is always personal and just for the individual asking.  Meaning it’s different for everyone.Remember, you asked.

  5. One more thing.  The atheists of the world tend to use the following flawed question as to “prove” their stance.  I will reveal the flaw, but first the question:

    If I could prove to you, absolutely, that a God does not exist, and show you with the best of evidence and reproducible detail, where life came from, how the planet was formed, and that there is no life after death, would you accept that?

    This question has a flaw.  Here’s the flaw:

    If God himself appeared to you, showed you in detail, how he created the universe, the solar system, Earth and life in all of its detail and power, step by step; allowing you to touch, smell, see, and hear everything from the smallest of detail to be absolutely convincing; but you would have only your word as proof to others, no ability to take any evidence with you (other than your word) to share with the scientific community, would that be sufficient for you, and would you declare that God exists to your colleagues?

    You see, the flaw is the person asked MUST relinquish their beliefs even before the rest of the question could be answered, regardless if the situation was possible.  It is a trap, not an honest question.Nevertheless, there have been a few people that have had such experiences in the second question, yet people ridicule them because only their word is proof.  It doesn’t matter if you believe them, and that is the true meaning.  It’s individual and matters to them.  They know God exists, they will share that with others, but faith must be used for those that didn’t see.

  6. Just wondering. Me, I don’t know who made God, or if there is a God. I suppose that makes me an atheist, or agnostic. However, I have no desire to “prove” anyone else right or wrong. These are truths we each must decide for ourselves. And respect the rights of others to do likewise. However, I would make one point. Science does not attempt to prove or disprove the existence of God. Science is a systematic enterprise of gathering knowledge
    about the universe and organizing and condensing that knowledge into
    testable laws and theories. The existence, or otherwise, of the religious or philosophical God is outside the bounds of scientific enquiry as there is no theory or law to be tested. As such, God must remain the province of theologians and philosophers. And, if I may be permitted, thank God for that.   

  7. I thought I replied to this before, but it doesn’t appear to have made it. I can’t see how you answered my question, but no matter. Philosophers and theologians have wrestled with that one down through the ages, and will continue to do so long after we are gone.For myself, I suppose I would be atheist or agnostic. That doesn’t mean that I have any desire to persuade anyone else to my beliefs, or lack of. So long as no-one tries to impose their beliefs on me through legislation, then I am content to live and let live. We each must come to our own truths, and be tolerant of others. Science doesn’t attempt to prove or disprove the existence of God. That is not its function. Science is defined as “The investigation of natural phenomena through observation, theoretical
    explanation, and experimentation, or the knowledge produced by such
    investigation.  Science makes use of the scientific method,
    which includes the careful observation of natural phenomena, the
    formulation of a hypothesis, the conducting of one or more experiments
    to test the hypothesis, and the drawing of a conclusion that confirms
    or modifies the hypothesis.”It is not possible to determine the existence of a supernatural God using the scientific method, therefore the question is not addressed by science. One may believe in God, but it is a matter of faith, not scientific reason. Intelligent Design is known by many as the “God of the Gaps” because while there is much that science cannot explain, it doesn’t logically follow that therefore Intelligent Design is the answer. All it means is that science has yet to discover the answers, and it is also possible that science may never discover the answers, as is being suggested with quantum mechanics. All that means is that mankind doesn’t have the mental capacity to do so. There is nothing to say that there are not more intelligent beings in the universe that would look upon us as being the equivalent if chimps.  

  8. I’m glad you pointed out what true science is.  You’ll find a religious person, someone comfortable in their beliefs and faith finds nothing wrong with true science as they believe God created the physical laws and elements that science tries to discover.Where those professing to be “scientists” (not all mind you), go too far when they actually think their theory “disproves” deity, when it doesn’t.  I see it as them knowing their position as weak and threatened that instead of the scientific method, they use the politics of ridicule to elevate a theory or idea to the absolute, which it is not.A faithful religious person will appreciate truth wherever it is.  No matter the circumstancial “evidence” there may to a theory, it is not fact, nor 100% truth.  This doesn’t matter what the theory or hypothesis may be.

  9. Remember Snowy, I need to approve comments before they appear.  It’s my way of fighting spam, and it seems to work.  If you’d like me to delete your first comment and leave your new one, then let me know.There is one thing that infuriates those that have no faith, and I do not say that disparagingly.  It’s the inability to say to that person that there may be a possibility of the non-existence of God.  This is simply because of how you got to the point of having real faith, that question was already answered in a very personal and beautiful manner that such a thing is preposterous.  It’s just as preposterous of having that same scientist go to the point of saying they would accept the Earth is flat if it could be proven.  That scientist already knows it’s round due to the truthful knowledge they have gained on the subject.  Having a person with REAL faith say they’d accept something just as preposterous in regards to the existence of God is hopefully more understandable.For me Snowy, I know God exists, I asked, I applied the principles, and I was given an answer.  Now I’m expected to use that knowledge to strengthen my faith.  That’s me, you do have just as much right to know and believe what you choose to.I’m beyond the part of existence.  I know I am not perfect, but I do try to be a better person day by day.  I make mistakes, but I overcome them.

  10. It doesn’t have to be a religion vs science thing, and most thinking people are comfortable with that. It’s when people try to use religious beliefs to disprove science, and vice versa, that the trouble starts,  Science follows the scientific method of enquiry. Religion doesn’t. That is why it is futile to argue that one disproves the other. And one doesn’t have to be religious to appreciate the wonder of the universe. We just come to it from different perspectives. Life is a work in progress, and at age 70 I’m still working at it. And enjoying the ride.

  11. Supersparky, you know I like you as a person, so I hope you don’t mind if I put forth a few dissenting thoughts here.
    I think you put this post together quite well; but you’re misrepresenting science. It’s quite easy to put words into the mouths of scientists, and scientsits do often use sloppy language when speaking casually. But that does not mean the evidence should be presented in a way which distorts reality.
    A few points:
    1. Of course Earth is in a place that did not burn up or freeze, because all the other potential planets that were in the wrong place, did burn up or freeze. So the only planet that “survived” is the one that was in the correct place. Do you understand what I mean by that?
    This is just like evolution; the animals that are left are the ones who were fit to survive the environment. Very important concept in science; it’s not a “coincidence”. The concept is incredibly straightforward; that matter (Earth, animals) which you see before you is that which was not destroyed by unfavorable conditions. It’s not a miracle; its common sense.
    2. Conditions do not have to be “perfect”. They simply need to be within a range. If someone drew my blood today, my blood urea nitrogen, packed cell volume, hydration, many other values, would be different tomorrow than they are today. What is important is homeostasis – they need to be within a certain range.
    None of this disproves God. It is not intened to, Supersparky. However no evidence proves intelligent design. Just because there are unanswered questions in a theory, does not make an alternate explaination, correct.   

  12. My comments were not directed towards anyone reasonable.  They were directed towards those that go too far.As to #1, I believe you go too far.  Whose to say an intelligence didn’t plan it that way?  The claim of “it all was an accident, or up to chance” also avoids the obvious because of all of the other things I mentioned.  One case can be picked and chosen to say “accident” all of them together indicate these were not accidents.  The odds of each them are incredible, the odds of all of them are much much more unlikely to all be convenient collections of accidents.As to evolution as current science states it?  Just because you find extinct species, doesn’t mean they mutated from one to the other.  It takes the stretch to say “that one turned into this one” or “that one evolved into this one”.  It is just as reasonable to assume that “that one no longer exists, and this one survived longer”  With that said, I do not discount the possibility of animal kingdom “evolution”.  Perhaps that is how it is supposed to work.”Man has a different purpose than the animals and is not evolved but placed.”  That statement and your statement can neither be proved nor disproved.  Those in the scientific community see to it that anything but Darwin’s theory is ridiculed and dismissed.  The scientific community also cannot accept the possibility of anything or anyone of greater intelligence than themselves involved in the actions and results they observe around them.About your #2, it once again picks a single event out of many “convenient” events.  Sorry, but all are single incredible events to make up the whole, but all must come together to achieve the desired result.  The was a major point of the whole article when I wrote it.  The odds as a single event are very high, but the odds compound themselves when one event cannot occur without the other event to give the conditions for it to occur.  The odds become exponential for each one as a collective group, not each one as a single happening.Tell me, what was the “range” to have moon exactly one tenth of the size of earth at just the right orbital distance, to cause a stable 24 hour day, a tilt to make four seasons, just enough tidal force to have the jet stream, ocean currents, and the continents at just the right place for temperate and stable weather, along with the conditions necessary to have the resources like oil and coal to be ready for man to use, to have plant life to process the carbon dioxide into oxygen and man to breath it and produce carbon dioxide…  Oh yes, and there must be an incredibly strong magnetic field to protect this life from the radiation of the sun and other sources.The problem with “this was all an accident” begins to be ridiculous and far from “common sense”.  It’s ignoring the 600 pound gorilla in the room.By the way, isn’t it quite interesting that blood does all the things it does, and your organs do all the things they do in simple and quite complicated means?  Isn’t interesting how just the human body alone has many many incredible processes needed to just make it function and a breakdown of any one of those can cause failure or a major malfunction?There’s just too many “coincidences” to say they were all accidental.  The odds are completely against it.Finally, there is just as much valid reason to say “there is no evidence to prove evolution (as Darwin says it is)” as there is “there is no evidence to prove an intelligent design”.  Both of these statements are false.  There is evidence for both, but does the “evidence” really “prove” either?  Circumstantial evidence sometimes ends up pointing to two different possible results with the same evidence.  Perhaps Darwin’s theory is wrong, but does that mean all theories of some sort of evolution are wrong?  Maybe not.There are also many ideas as to how intelligence may have been involved, but it doesn’t mean all are right, nor does it mean all are wrong either, despite the “evidence” of the other theory.There is a possibility of both proving both.To completely dismiss the other and ignore the 600 pound gorilla isn’t very “scientific”.

  13. Again, no disrespect intended by what I’m about to say, I am no smarter than anyone here. Just want to toss that out there for clarity.
    I’m sorry, but there is ample evidence for evolution. 150 years after Darwin died, studies have proven it again and again especially with DNA evidence that was not around in Darwin’s time. And just to be fair it was Darwin and Wallace, not just Darwin.
    If there’s evidence (i.e. properly conducted studies, that are actually on paper), for Intelligent Design, I’d love to see it. ID is not a theory. Evolution is.
    If the idea is life is “too Incredible” to not have a designer is such a weak argument I’m not even sure how to respond. We need more proof than that! But again, you’re seriously misinformed if you think science is somehow trying to disprove God by saying all this. I know many biologists who say God could have been behind evolution and big bang and all that and they’re fine with the clear evidence.    
    Look, the human brain only has so much surface area. What seems ”incredible: to the uneducated seems rather mundane to those of us who chose to spend gobs of time becoming biologists. Again, not that I’m smarter, just that you haven’t made the effort to understand this stuff.  

  14. As I recall, fossils do not have DNA as it’s now rock.  “Ample evidence” is still not the “reproducible” evidence you just demanded.  A “consensus” is not science either.  It’s just a club of people in agreement.  Like I said, there is a difference between circumstantial and absolute evidence.Also, I do not take issue with evolution or a form thereof.  Nevertheless, “Darwinian” evolution has its flaws, and even scientists today say that, not just those believing in deity, but even the atheists.  The “ample” is also an opinion.  All of the “evidence” still does not satisfy the scientific method of reproducibility and the showing and demonstrating how it works.  Even those espousing the “Darwinian” view have conflicting theories as to how evolution works.  Some say it happens in spurts (mutation via gamma ray bursts etc.), some say it happens slowly over long time periods (sometimes with the occasional cosmic ray dislodging a DNA strand), some say drastic environment change brings it on as an emergency trigger.  I’m afraid “ample” isn’t enough here.One could say, and have just as much scientific and evidential reason to say, that the differing species are all species that died off, not necessarily evolved from one to the other.One could also say that a combination of the two happened.As to intelligent design not being a theory, true in the sense it is not proposed in that manner.  It would seem to be also true that the scientific community refuses to accept it as a competing theory even if tried.  Many scientists I know of have, AND it would seem the scientific community’s rejection of the ID research would also indicate an unwillingness to accept ID as a theory, this being purely political.  A better question to pose about this would be “Why isn’t ID accepted as a theory?”  There are other disciplines in science with competing theories (astronomy being a good one), yet why is only one theory allowed for biology and origin of species?As to evolution, here’s my statement on it.  I do not believe evolution, as Darwin (and Wallace, geez) postulated it, is correct.  Would I accept a form of evolution or adaptation for the animal kingdom as a possibility?  Sure.  What I will never accept (see my previous replies) is that man is an evolutionary creature.  I sincerely believe man was created in the image of God and did not evolve into it.  Are there animals similar to man?  Sure.  Are there animals as intelligent as man?  Sorry, no, and it’s meant to be that way.My beliefs are that man has a different purpose in life than the animals.  Men and women are literally God’s children, and are here to be tested, not to evolve.  Our progression is spiritual, not physical.  If the animals have been created to constantly evolve into different forms of life over their history, then I am fine with that.  However, that’s not man’s destiny.

  15. I’m impressed that you’re willing to be flexible in this conversation. You seem to get it, so I can debate with you as though you are a peer, not someone who’s brainwashed. Don’t get me wrong, you can beleive whatever you want. But I want you to understand that scientists are just trying to understand what they see. Nothing more.
    You’re confusing fossils with mummified bodies, Supersparky. Fossils are just the imprint of an animal or plant which has since biodegraded or is sometimes mineralized and is no longer there.  The DNA collected comes from hair or bone of a mummified animal which is dug up from a bog or somewhere else it has been naturally preserved.
    But that’s if we’re talking about extinct animals. Current DNA evidence for evolution is often found in extant species (species which are related but neither has gone extinct).
    The findings for evolution have been reproduced hundreds of times since Darwin. I’m not sure I understand what you mean by “Darwinian evolution”. It’s not a term that’s used in science, it would be like saying Newtonian motion instead of just motion. Just because Darwin (and Wallace)! discovered it that does not mean it changes the theory.
    There’s many unanswered questions in science. That’s why scientists are supposed to openly criticize and try to poke holes in even the most accepted explainations of the natural world – so we can learn more. Some theories may be wrong, many many more are simply needing additional information and modification. That makes them incomplete, not wrong.
    As we move forward we see that there are many more possibilities than we imagined, which is why your contention about Big Bang Theory is wrong, it’s being questioned as we speak, as it should be.
    Feel free to beleive in God, plenty of biologists do. Some don’t. But Intelligent Design never enters into the world of science, because it’s not science. It’s religion. As many holes as there may be in the Theory of Evolution, there is not even enough evidence to solidify ID enough to poke holes in it.
    Does that mean there’s no God? Of course not. It means that since God is omnipotent, it’s a matter of faith. I don’t know why something so precious in your mind such as God should be opened to tangible proof; honestly if I were a “God” I’d be insulted at such scrutiny. It kind of takes away the specialness of it, to reduce God to bits of proof.   

  16. There are believers and non-believers.  One thinks all knowledge comes from themselves and the Earth.  The other thinks all knowledge comes from God, but it’s going to take researching the Earth while asking God to help them to find the answers.  God teaches best by experience, as it is the only way to truly learn.  The Bible is just a book.  To some it’s a collection of fairy tales and old stories by a bunch of kooks.  The only way it is going to be an effective teaching tool is to apply what is written in it to our own lives and learn from it by experience.The same goes for all knowledge.  God will not just send a bunch of angels to tell everyone everything.  They wouldn’t learn from it.  How can you know joy without understanding misery?  This is also why I believe so-called “scientific proof” of God will never be allowed by God.Whether it be dinosaurs, animal evolution, whatever, God wants us to do all of the work, and when the time is right, and everyone has done their best to learn it on their own, he will start revealing more “never before understood” truths to make the puzzle fit together, slowly and carefully.  He will help when asked, but he won’t give you answers to the test.  Like any parent, he will help you study, but learning is up to you.This is why a true believer cannot differentiate religion from science, as all knowledge comes from God.  To learn about nature is to learn about God.Let me put something forward to you.  It is a belief probably only shared by those in my faith, but interesting to consider:We believe that there are higher laws than the laws we experience today, but as part of our test, the higher laws are hidden from us and beyond our reach.  These higher laws govern the lesser laws.  Nevertheless, left alone, these lesser laws operate in perfect function.Let me explain.  The universe we are in, we consider to be governed by “Telestial” laws (ignore the scientific definition of these words for the moment), and they are governed by “Terrestrial” laws, which are ultimately governed by “Celestial” laws.  Our mortal existence is in a “Telestial” governed universe.  However, since God controls it via Celestial authority, he can manipulate the Telestial.  So he can accelerate what would normally take billions or millions of years using higher laws to do so.  It doesn’t break Telestial law because as part of those laws they are subordinate to the higher laws.  It is how “miracles” happen.  It’s not “magic”, but according to higher laws.So, when elements in the Telestial are left to themselves, they do as what you see through your telescope.  Stars form, live for a few billion years, and die to form new planets and stars.  However, God can use these materials and using higher laws cause them to come together with a specific design and purpose in mind, and not take billions or millions of years.Seriously, read the account of the Earth’s forming.  It sounds like a star nursery in a nebula (where there is light), then the sun is formed and is moved from the nursery (divided the dark from the light), then the planets are formed with the Earth, then the moon is formed (perhaps via a collision), then liquid water, then plant life, then aquatic life, then land and land life, and finally man is placed on it.Can it happen in 6000 years on its own?  Never, but if God needs it for something, then he accelerates the process via the higher laws.  This means carbon deterioration, etc. happened very fast.  No laws are broken, all happens as if it took billions or millions of years, but actually did in thousands.  In computer geek speak, he overclocked the solar system until he finished with it.  God didn’t break any laws to do it, as they are subject to the higher laws.  He used the higher laws to dictate what the lower laws and elements need to do.What this also means is that there is a lot more knowledge to discover beyond this world.  Many more forms of matter and energy than we can see and experience here.This is why scientific discovery is not threatening, even if it says “millions of years”.  I only grin.

Come on, you know you want to say something.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: