Perceptions of God, Creationism and Evolution

[Phoenix]

Thats a massive presupposition that evolution is true. Evolution remains to be proven, and the evidence (such as the information problem) strongly suggests that it is false. Considering the evidence I have provided, don't you think that you are taking a huge leap of faith?

TV, what I can't get my head around is this concept of a divine creator who has manufactured this immense universe that modern science has shown us consists of billions of solar systems and the likelihood of trillions and trillions of planets...and yet the creator has decided to spoil us as the solitary place in the universe with diversity and complexity of life...doesn't it make you think what is the purpose of the 'void' of everything else...?

[Vangelovski]

I'm mainly talking about Christianity and its uncomfortable fit with the prospect of other life on other worlds in the Universe...

Current scientific (astronomy) focus is on the discovery of Earth like planets within our own galaxy...exoplanets that exist in a habitable zone in relationship to their host star where water can exist in liquid form, the belief is that there are trillions of such places in the universe...where the evolutionary forces recoginized on Earth could be replicated elsewhere...

Thats a massive presupposition that evolution is true. Evolution remains to be proven, and the evidence (such as the information problem) strongly suggests that it is false. Considering the evidence I have provided, don't you think that you are taking a huge leap of faith?

[Phoenix]

Agreed. But this only makes things more complex and more improbable that it happened by chance.

I would argue that scientific discoveries have supported Christianity and don't see why it would need to change. Besides, God is unchanging, he's not going to go with the flow everytime we change our minds about something or develop a new theory. He knows whats what What other religion do you know of that has engaged science in order to discover how the world works? Do you know which religion the founders of modern science adhered to?

I'm mainly talking about Christianity and its uncomfortable fit with the prospect of other life on other worlds in the Universe...

Current scientific (astronomy) focus is on the discovery of Earth like planets within our own galaxy...exoplanets that exist in a habitable zone in relationship to their host star where water can exist in liquid form, the belief is that there are trillions of such places in the universe...where the evolutionary forces recoginized on Earth could be replicated elsewhere...

[Vangelovski]

Vangelovski you have so much theological knowledge you could be a priest . It would be awesome for our non maco partners to hear our services in english . Am impressed

It would be good for young Macedonians you don't understand a word of Macedonian to hear them as well

Though, it would be good if they learn't Macedonian!

[Vangelovski]

TV, I honestly believe that our journey along this path of knowledge is in its infancy. There's another 'world' yet to be discovered at the sub atomic level (including particles and forces) where science is only just developing the technology to observe and test these findings.

Agreed. But this only makes things more complex and more improbable that it happened by chance.

My view of Christianity and beliefs such as creationism is its unfortunate inability to 'evolve', as mankind makes new discoveries, which one day may be the realisation that life exists beyond our planet.
It appears that Christianity of all the Worlds religions, is the poorest equipped to make this adjustment.

I would argue that scientific discoveries have supported Christianity and don't see why it would need to change. Besides, God is unchanging, he's not going to go with the flow everytime we change our minds about something or develop a new theory. He knows whats what What other religion do you know of that has engaged science in order to discover how the world works? Do you know which religion the founders of modern science adhered to?

If science contradicts religion, how do atheists explain the fact that most of the great scientists of the past believed in God and took the Bible seriously? The Institute of Creation Research (USA), for example, lists 31 such scientists together with the scientific disciplines they helped to establish. They include Kepler (astronomy), Pascal (hydrostatics), Boyle (chemistry), Newton (calculus), Linnaeus (systematic biology), Faraday (electromagnetics), Cuvier (comparative anatomy), Kelvin (thermodynamics), Lister (antiseptic surgery), Mendel (genetics), and many other equally famous names.

If religion is an obstacle to science, how do atheists get round the fact that empirical science first arose in Christian Europe, three centuries before the rise of Darwinism? It did so precisely because of the almost universal belief in a Creator God. This gave the founders of modern science the confidence they needed that the natural world was orderly and therefore capable of systematic investigation. They expected to find ‘law’ in Nature because they believed in a Lawgiver. Or, to use another analogy, they assumed that the ‘Book of Nature’ had a readable ‘text’ because Nature had an Author.

[Phoenix]

hypothetically anything is possible, theologically no and scientifically, in my view, no (because of the incalculable mathematical improbability and the information problem).

What do you think of the problem of information. For example, the instructions for how to build, operate, and repair living cells represent a vast amount of information (estimated at 12 billion bits). However, information is a mental, non-material concept. It can never arise from a natural process and is always the result of an intelligence. Just as a newspaper story transcends the ink on the paper, life’s DNA itself (like the ink) is not the information (the story), it is simply a physical storage facility. Modifying the DNA via mutation can never produce new genetic information to drive upward evolution, just as spilling coffee on the newspaper, thereby modifying the distribution of the ink, will never improve the story.

TV, I honestly believe that our journey along this path of knowledge is in its infancy. There's another 'world' yet to be discovered at the sub atomic level (including particles and forces) where science is only just developing the technology to observe and test these findings.

My view of Christianity and beliefs such as creationism is its unfortunate inability to 'evolve', as mankind makes new discoveries, which one day may be the realisation that life exists beyond our planet.
It appears that Christianity of all the Worlds religions, is the poorest equipped to make this adjustment.

[julie]

Vangelovski you have so much theological knowledge you could be a priest . It would be awesome for our non maco partners to hear our services in english . Am impressed

[Vangelovski]

TV, where do you sit with the possibility of 'life' elsewhere in our universe, as purely a hypothetical question.

hypothetically anything is possible, theologically no and scientifically, in my view, no (because of the incalculable mathematical improbability and the information problem).

What do you think of the problem of information. For example, the instructions for how to build, operate, and repair living cells represent a vast amount of information (estimated at 12 billion bits). However, information is a mental, non-material concept. It can never arise from a natural process and is always the result of an intelligence. Just as a newspaper story transcends the ink on the paper, life’s DNA itself (like the ink) is not the information (the story), it is simply a physical storage facility. Modifying the DNA via mutation can never produce new genetic information to drive upward evolution, just as spilling coffee on the newspaper, thereby modifying the distribution of the ink, will never improve the story.

[Phoenix]

TV, where do you sit with the possibility of 'life' elsewhere in our universe, as purely a hypothetical question.

[Vangelovski]

The point is, why so much variety, why create animals that are only suited to a particular environment, why create delicate ecosystems, why create microbes that can exist in the harshest imaginable conditions, including animals that can exist in extreme pressure environments devoid of sunlight...

Phoenix,

Just a small note to clear up some of the confusion around evolution and adaptability issues that you raised.

Much of the confusion around the concept of "evolution" is that this word is commonly used to describe two very different things:

1. Micro-evolution refers to the fact that living things have a built-in variability which allows them to adapt to small changes in the environment. When scientists say that evolution is a proven fact, they mean that micro-evolution is a proven fact. No creation scientist disputes this. Indeed, this ability to adapt would be expected as a part of "good design". Textbook examples of "evolution in action" almost always describe this type of small change, such as the "peppered moth" story, or the development of resistance to pesticides. What is happening in these cases is not the creation of something new, but merely the emphasis of an already existing trait.

1. Macro-evolution refers to the type of change which has created people from hydrogen gas. Evolutionists say that large scale change is possible because we have seen small scale change in action. However, the flaw in this reasoning is that living systems have limits beyond which no further change can take place.

[George S.]

Vangelovski my son one time took my wallet $450 to school whilst he was 5yr & in kindergaten.He went to the canteen & decided to shout drinks to everyone.Lucky the women stopped him because he had a lot of money on him.I had a good laugh about it.

[Vangelovski]

I know for a fact that I can make nothing appear out of something any time. Case in point, $50 notes disappear form my wallet all the time.

$50, is that all? That's amatuer hour

[Vangelovski]

Vangelovski you do understand the age of the Earth, our moon, the planets, the milky way and universe is not determeninded by radioactive decay entireley on its own there are many other tools too

Of course there are Zarni. You can list them all.

[George S.]

One thing in this life is certain yo are born & then you die in between are the taxes & you can't take it with you.Bill & rtg i can assure you i allways seem to count $50 less only when my wife & kids are around.$50 bucks goes missing guranteed.

[Zarni]

Vangelovski you do understand the age of the Earth, our moon, the planets, the milky way and universe is not determeninded by radioactive decay entireley on its own there are many other tools too