This did not come about by chance...

No, that's a misinterpretation of Einstein's view of the relationship between science and religion.

"Accordingly, a religious person is devout in the sense that he has no doubt of the significance and loftiness of those superpersonal objects and goals which neither require nor are capable of rational foundation. They exist with the same necessity and matter-of-factness as he himself. In this sense religion is the age-old endeavor of mankind to become clearly and completely conscious of these values and goals and constantly to strengthen and extend their effect. If one conceives of religion and science according to these definitions then a conflict between them appears impossible. For science can only ascertain what is, but not what should be, and outside of its domain value judgments of all kinds remain necessary. Religion, on the other hand, deals only with evaluations of human thought and action: it cannot justifiably speak of facts and relationships between facts. According to this interpretation the well-known conflicts between religion and science in the past must all be ascribed to a misapprehension of the situation which has been described.

"For example, a conflict arises when a religious community insists on the absolute truthfulness of all statements recorded in the Bible. This means an intervention on the part of religion into the sphere of science; this is where the struggle of the Church against the doctrines of Galileo and Darwin belongs. On the other hand, representatives of science have often made an attempt to arrive at fundamental judgments with respect to values and ends on the basis of scientific method, and in this way have set themselves in opposition to religion. These conflicts have all sprung from fatal errors.”

Religion and science are separate realms (or spheres). Trying to address one realm with the tools of the other realm is nonsense. Religion has NO place in science and science has NO place in religion.

 

Sorry, but I think I answered all your questions. If you still have a question, you're just going to have to identify it in some way.

 

What's the big deal about creating a vacuum bubble?
That's easy to do.

AboveAlha

 

You should be the last person to talk.

AboveAlpha

 

If people in science, think of Dawkins here, were only concerned with the details of how life evolved, there wouldn't be such a problem when it comes to the religious. But Dawkins goes much farther than that, I am afraid. He is one of these militant atheists, who derides anyone who thinks that an intelligence beyond the brain of man was involved. And of course, he is the rally point, he and others, for the non scientists who are atheists, who have turned atheism into a sort of religion if you define religion by a belief, a faith in a certainty that doesn't actually exist.

Science at one time didn't go after theists. But today, when one thinks of a scientist, one has to also assume they are atheists as well, as they seem to go together. So much so, that if you have a religious man in academia, he knows to not voice his religious beliefs, if he wants not to be an outcast in academia. It's a circus, and very political.

 

What you quoted doesn't say anything like this. I'll be happy to elaborate for anyone who's interested - which clearly doesn't include you.

That makes one of us.

I'm sure you do.

 

Out my window, all matter is deteriorating. Perpetual motions machines are not possible. There is order and exact physics to have all I see out my window possible, designed and created by an omnipotent God.

I see God's Creation everywhere as a marvelous wonder for all to see and realize his creative power.

 

I agree, but I really don't care about animals in the afterlife. For one thing, religion can change on that. In fact, the pope (in comments to some children, as I remember) recently commented that earthly pets could be available in heaven.

So, I would go more toward noting that human consciousness is just more developed than dog consciousness, powered by the hugely more powerful brains that gave humans a competitive advantage.

 

Then cite it.

I do NOT mean for you to tell me your nonsense about thermodynamics, etc.

Please cite someone you see as an authority, a source of the argument, or whatever.

 

I have, you choose to ignore the scientific facts over your dogma.

 

Well the reasons why we developed a powerful brain is because of Climate Change.

Our Ancient Human Ancestors once lived in the African Rainforest Trees but as the Climate Changed what was once vast African Rainforest became open, flat and dry Savannah.

Our Human Ancestors were forced out of the diminishing trees and those Human Ancestors who hade the traits to walk upright survived via Natural Selection and Survival of the Fittest as a Human that could stand and walk upright could see above the tall grasses and see both predator and prey.

As well Humans developed the most efficient method of fat storage and access to fat based energy in the animal kingdom.

Most people don't know this but a Human Being can run down ANY LAND ANIMAL ALIVE.

Human's store fat in our legs and body that we can access so that a Human can run for days on end without stopping.

Any other Land Animal might be able to run up to 70 mph for short distances but eventually they tire thus a Human Hunter can track them and chase them until they become exhausted and then become FOOD for us.

AboveAlpha

- - - Updated - - -

Thus as Humans began to eat a greater amount of Protein....the Human Brain evolved to become much more powerful.....without Climate Change the Human Brain would never have evolved in this manner.

AboveAlpha

 

Sorry if I missed it. I don't remember you citing anything.

 

John 5:44 How can ye believe, which receive honour one of another, and seek not the honour that cometh from God only?
45 Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust.
46 For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me; for he wrote of me.
47 But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?

 

What a bunch of crap!!

You were asked to back up your statemets and as you cannot you as usual...go and post Biblical Scripture??

LOL!!!!

This is like a person saying......I AM SMARTER THAN ANYONE ELSE ON EARTH!!

Another person say's....PROVE IT!

The first person replies.....BECAUSE I SAID SO!! THERE IS YOUR PROOF!!!

YOU...are like the First Person.

You make statements you can't provide any proof or eveidence to back your claims so you quote nonsense out of a book.

AboveAlpha

 

Your idea is that God's intent with the bible was to inform us of physics. And, if viewed in that way, the biblical model of physics is clear nonsense as demonstrated by the Noah story.

And, that is rude and demeaning of God's message to mankind. It misses the entire point of religion in general and Christianity in specific - and does so in a profound way.

As the pope, Einstein and so many others have pointed out, injecting religion into science and injecting science into religion are both major league blunders.

 

I am sorry to learn that you hold more esteem for some guy with a funny hat who gets carried around in a chaise wearing a 5 pound gold cross and follows all none of the commandments, mostly, more that you do God and His Son.

There may be a few Christians in the Catholic church, but sitting in the garage does not make you an automobile.