This did not come about by chance...

We have actual evidence of the big bang. In fact, evidence of the big bang come from substantially different sources.

For example, the speed and trajectories of stellar objects may be measured, and we find that they come from one point in space. The "big bang" also predicts that there would be background radiation still detectable in the microwave band. That radiation was discovered before its source was recognized. We can also detect light from objects that appeared relatively soon after the big bang.

These are concrete pieces of evidence - based on facts (recorded events).

 

No, Roman Cahtholics do not worship the pope. They see him as having an intercessory role.

 

The only part I'm NOT cool with is the part where that is viewed as a refutation of science.

We become a loser nation when we decide to reject science. It affects our decision making in every field (not just science and/or engineering). It affects our families, our education, our economic system, and as a result it affects our nation.

We can not afford to abandon science simply because science doesn't have a pat answer for abiogenesis.

 

No, it's the other way around.

Protestantism is a "bastardization" (as you call it) of Catholicism. Catholicism is founded on Paul's church and continued to today.

It's total nonsense to suggest that the RC is omitted from listings of the branches of the Christian church either historically or doctrinally.


And, here we go again with your absolute BS about information - lol!

 

Natural selection. And selection, of any kind, destroys randomness.

 

There is no evidence, only conjecture. A fairy tale. All of what you wrote is supposition. No factual evidence.

- - - Updated - - -

Which is contrary to the teachings of Scripture.

- - - Updated - - -

The rejection of scientific facts amd laws are by the evolutionists. Creations love science sine all the discoveries confirm Genesis.

- - - Updated - - -

Then tell us who does the selection, since selection requires intelligence.

 

You really don't know much about Bio-chemistry do you? I'm not denying I forgot about Hydrogen, but at least I was on the right track.
"In chemistry terms, organic means that a molecule has a carbon backbone, with some hydrogens thrown in for good measure. Living creatures are made of various kinds of organic compounds. Inorganic molecules are composed of other elements. They can contain hydrogen or carbon, but if they have both, they are organic."
http://www.shmoop.com/biomolecules/organic-inorganic-molecules.html

Evolution is supported through carbon dating. That is science. The Big Bang theory is supported by the doppler shift. That is science. Those two theories are not theologies. Those are scientific theories. Creationism is not a scientific theory.

- - - Updated - - -

That's why people have to realize the difference between science and religion.

 

Sorry if your priest told you otherwise, but what I posted is historical.

The RC have 9 Commandments, pray to statues, worship a cracker in a glass insert in a cross. Heck, the Catholics do not even depict Jesus down from the cross, he is still hung there in the Catholic churches.

 

How many years does it take for carbon dating to exceed it's limitations?

Doppler shift is not a proven science, only that segments of electromagnetic waves are weak or missing when measured from particular sources. Regardless, the Bible, over 2,000 years old told us the universe is expanding. So that is nothing new. With any 'big or little bang (explosion) patterns and order are not produced.

Evolution is only a scientific hypothesis at best, a fairy tale to satisfy people who refuse to see the obvious evidence of creation all around them is more likely.

This fits perfectly what evolutionists BELIEVE.

Religion:
noun1.a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
​

 

Several billion years. If you pour a watchworks from case to case for long enough it will eventually form a ticking entity that tells time, and then it's locked in place, it can just get better and cannot get worse as a functioning thing.

And WHY are you so adamant about it? Most of the Christian religions have no problem with modern science. A literal belief in the Bible trivializes the great work God has done. WHY would a loving God give us evidence of a Great Plan of royal grandeur and exquisite beauty all around us and then expect us to believe in a limited and simple minded schema requiring him to be both horribly deceptive and constantly involved to work?

 

Saying that an intelligent force did it is more believable than saying something so complex happened by flipping a coin. Who flipped the coin? When the probability is so astronomical when left to coin flipping it takes pure faith to believe that it could happen like that. In fact, more faith than thinking that an intelligent force(not an anthropomorphic image) was involved. I don't believe in that god that looks and acts like man. I do think that an intelligence is involved in the creation of life and its evolution. Some organizing principle. For the odds are just astronomically high when it comes to coin flipping. So high as to be practically impossible. I think a mathematician would agree on the probability issue. Biologists are hardly math guys. We need to be led by the math, not a believe in god or a disbelief in god. What does the math say? Well, we already know what it says, if you listen to the people who do math for a living. Yet some people like Dawkins will admit that it is highly improbable, but he still believes in happened anyways. Crick say the improbability is so great that he thinks an ET brought life here. So it boils down to having faith in an improbability, being probable. And that's nuts.

 

Having a science degree and growing up with hobbies of geology & astronomy, I have found a way to take both the scriptures (NOT religion as such) and the principles & discoveries of science, BOTH into their "proper context."

Remember, that the scriptures were written or given verbally by 'inspired' MEN and 'canonized' by well-meaning MEN, but MEN were still involved in the process.

I have 'been there' as taking all literally and w/o error; but as a 'truth seeker' have had to alter my 'noble' past stance to that which is also consistent with what He has 'revealed' to us via Science. Truth shud be truth for both scripture & science!

I responded in another thread with:

 

What is lacking in the "coin flip" analogy is that for life to arise from nothing the coin must be flipped to produce the desired result billions of times. So there would need to be a googol of coin flips times a googol to create sustainable life from a mud puddle. A belief in that can only be described as a religion.

 

Because I do think that molecules were manifested after the Big Bang. The Big Bang is a miracle, given that science believes something very tiny suddenly expanded with an explosive quality, and manifested over time into this vast universe. Time, space matter energy, and the natural laws that govern these things came into being. So, it had a beginning. Science says to grant them that one miracle and they can explain the rest, given enough time. But the miracle still stands.

So yes, I do think an immeasurable, timeless intelligence, is the ground from which all of the universe grew, manifested. I do not image this as religions have done, in fact, I understand that thought which is of time, can never image such a thing. So I don't waste time trying to say it is this or that, other than intelligence. But logically this intelligence must be outside of time, not subject to a beginning or an end. But without it, there would be no order in the universe. And it takes order, coherence for even life to manifest at some point in time, and that order is the work of intelligence. If not, you have to depend upon mathematical probability that is so astronomical as to be absurd, if one wants to use that to get rid of the intelligence. Yet if one negates the idea of an intelligence, you then basically put faith in something else that is IMO, more improbable. Yet science has no problem inventing something called dark matter which can only be inferred, for it is necessary or otherwise the physics becomes incoherent. But intelligence is also inferred when one looks at the probability factor of an intelligence not being inferred. I think it is more of a problem of being wedded to scientific materialism as a way of understanding the macro universe that is the problem. Biology is still deeply materialistic in nature, and its future probably contains a paradigm change that quantum mechanics brought to physics. And so a place for information in biology similar perhaps to the information theorized at the quantum level. Most QPs say this level is about interrelationships energy and information. Obviously the information is coherent, yet its source is not approachable by the scientific method. There may be a place for coherent information in the manifestation of life and its evolution. It will still be a philosophical question as to what the source is.

 

Again. most 'unbelievers' dont really disagree with the 'words of Jesus' in the NT concerning loving one's fellow man, charity, etc.

And to reach them with the Good News (Gospel), one must go beyond just being 'religious,' and empathize with their state (most of "us" have been there at one point in life), understanding their dilemma of honoring the attitude of Jesus the man, even His sacrifice as "No greater love has a man than to lay down his life for a friend," and still dealing with what is perceived as 'hard-nosed' religion.

"Religion" has failed as a man-made attempt to worship God on 'their' own terms, and so must be removed from 'preaching' (witnessing to) the Good news.

If truth is truth, then scripture & science shud be in harmony with one another---only the interpretations may differ.

 

True that.
The history channel is back on the seems like yearly ancient alien theory.
If they show nothing else, it shows me how many ancient structure there are in the world I never knew about. And how some connection between them may exist.

 

Sure I could see that. Why wouldn't there be?

- - - Updated - - -

Or that is how the cell evolved enough to survive and replicate. Others died off.

 

The ancient alien theories can be correlated with the Biblical Scriptures "Let us create man in our image" being the 'city gods' of Samaria and 'the mighty men of old' as mentioned in Genesis.

Those who are indeed truth seekers, must keep the all in context.

Otherwise, they're merely a product of` men's dogma & doctrine!