leibowde84
Veteran Member
That is due to the fact that the "evidence" creationists see is not verifiable and really isn't evidence. It is merely inference based on our limited understanding and our unreliable subjective experience.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Why science unable to control Death ?
- Thread starter chinu
- Start date
leibowde84
Veteran Member
If there was actual verifiable evidence found for a creator, the scientific community would certainly consider it. Up till now, none has been found.
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
Why should they? The assertion of a creator cannot be tested for. It is not that science refuses to consider the possibility, it's that it has no good reason to assume or assert a creator. I also can't name one scientific hypothesis or theory that mentions the possibility of unicorns. It doesn't mean anything.
Actually, we have a fairly well-rounded theory explaining how the Universe formed from the big bang. As to how and why the big bang occurred, there are still a lot of questions that scientists are working on.
Erm, no. We have a very comprehensive understanding of how and why evolution occurs.
The difference is that evidence of the big bang is objectively verifiable and testable. The supposed evidence of a creator is entirely subjective, unverifiable and untestable. They aren't even remotely equivalent.
leibowde84
Veteran Member
Also, just out of curiosity, why would people's belief in a creator be considered at all? Science is based on evidence and testable theories. Short of that, science should not consider it. It would go against the scientific method.
Milton Platt
Well-Known Member
The fact that many people believe in a creator proves nothing. People have believed in numerous creators over the millennia. I can believe in fire breathing dragons if I want to, but that does not mean they exist.
As to your questions and assertions about what science does not know, it is about what is known, not what is not known. Science does not refuse to consider a creator. Science simply follows the evidence available. Where is your theory of creation with supporting evidence that takes into account the several hundred years of accumulated facts without cherry picking or ignoring the inconvenient parts?
Provide equivalent scientifically validated evidence for creationism.
Finally, you claim the science can't provide exact details of how life began or how the universe began. Okay, from the bible, produce exact detail of how the universe and life began. Tell us how god produced time, matter, and energy.
Explain precisely what process he used to assemble protiens and other things from the dust of the earth. Don't give us the general genisis accounting. Provide the details that science is lacking.
Last edited:
lostwanderingsoul
Well-Known Member
That is the point. Science is lacking details and religion is lacking details. Why are the missing details in religion more important than the missing details in science? Religion is willing to agree that the big bang occurred and may have been the method God used in creating the universe. Science says the big bang occurred but they do not know why and will not even admit the possibility of God causing it. I can show you many religious beliefs that agree with science but you can not show one scientific belief that mentions even the possibility of a creator.
leibowde84
Veteran Member
Nope. "Science" doesn't discount possibilities in the way that you claim. It only recognize theories confirmed through evidence. There is no verifiable evidence that God used the Big Bang as a tool. Thus, it is absurd to complain that science doesn't consider it. If you have verifiable evidence that supports God as being the creator (without resorting to an argument of ignorance ... claiming that the lack of an alternative explanations somehow evidences the claim that God did it), you and anyone else is more than welcome to demonstrate that evidence. Don't blame science for the lack of evidence beyond mere unreliable subjective personal experience.
Milton Platt
Well-Known Member
Most scientists can accept god as a mere possibility if that is all you are seeking. It is probability that counts. To estimate the two probabilities you examine the evidence on hand. That is what science is for. The earth was not created in 6 days or 6,000 years according to the evidence. Man has walked the earth far longer than that. If you have testable, falsifiable evidence to present you should do it and claim your place in history.
McBell
mantra-chanting henotheistic snake handler
False.
The reason a creator is discounted is because there is nothing outside logical fallacies and wishful thinking presented as evidence of a creator.
It is not the duty or job of science to disprove god.
It is on those making the claim to support their claim.
They cannot support their claims of god using science.
Yes.
Pretty much every single time science says "we do not know".
And they flat out admit they do not know.
Unlike religion that tries filling the gap of knowledge with god.
Flat out wrong.
Evolution is one of the most documented, tested, etc...
Your unwillingness (or is it inability?) to understand evolution is not the fault of science.
Correct.
now you are a merely playing word games.
Whether it is intentional or out of ignorance is still to be determined.
Good question ^ above ^.
Sometimes I hear the expression " Adam to Armageddon "
Some teach Armageddon as an end to earth or life on earth, when according to Scripture Armageddon ends all wickedness on earth - Psalms 92:7; Proverbs 2:21-22; Jeremiah 25:31-33
Adam could live forever on earth as long as he did Not break God's Law.
Because Adam broke God's Law then Adam passed down to us his then acquired human imperfection leaning towards wrongdoing.
Jesus will undo all the damage Satan and Adam brought upon the human race.
Thus, mankind will be able to have the same original opportunity to live forever on earth which was offered to Adam before his downfall.
Most of mankind can gain everlasting life on earth in perfect health and happiness starting with Jesus' coming 1,000-year governmental rulership over earth - Revelation 22:2
Milton Platt
Well-Known Member
Science has lots of details that add up to how the universe began. The theory is a result of aligning these facts. What we can know currently stops a short space of time before the big bang. Threr is no need to fill the gap in knowledge with a god anymore than you should fill it with the tooth fairy. Creationism has no facts other than to say "god did it". If you had them you would be publishing the papers and allowing the hypothesis to be tested. You only have un-testable assertions. That fact is made self-evident because creationists spend most of their time trying to discredit science without even bothering to understand it instead of making their case.
WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE?
Milton Platt
Well-Known Member
He asked why you thought your scripture was more accurate...this does not answer the question, it is merely more scripture.
You are right. According to Genesis those 6 creative days are Not 6,000 years.
There is Nothing in Genesis even saying that the 6 creative days were of the same or of differing lengths of time.
Genesis 2:4 even sums up all of the creative days by using the word ' day '
So, in Bible speak, the word ' day ' has shades of meaning as in our day when we speak of grandfather's day we are Not speaking of a specific length of life.
Even the word day is used in connection to the light part of a day at Genesis 1:5
So, there is Nothing in Scripture that is out of harmony with CMBR ( cosmic microwave background radiation ) dating.
In a nut shell, I think more accurate because the picture pieces all fit together.
From Paradise lost ( Eden ) to Paradise regained under Christ's coming 1,000-year governmental rulership over Earth.
Mankind lost everlasting life on Earth, mankind will regain everlasting life on Earth.
So, what caused the Big Bang?
According to Scripture, it was God's ' power ' and God's ' strength ' which supplied the abundantly needed dynamic energy to create the material world.
Reference verses: Isaiah 40:26; Jeremiah 10:12; Jeremiah 27:5; Jeremiah 32:17
Milton Platt
Well-Known Member
It says that a day is an evening and a morning..........sounds like a day to me. Even so, you cannot tell me that in the bronze age when this stuff was written that they understood six days to represent a time span of billions of years.
There is not anything in Genesis that is even remotely related to "cosmic background radiation".
God worked six days and rested on the seventh. Although it is a puzzle why he needed the rest.
Milton Platt
Well-Known Member
I do know the Bible, and I do not see any reference to anything about the singularity or the big bang. Scripture is not authoritative unless you already believe that there is a god and that he created everything. In which case your reasoning is circular and invalid at the get-go.
Milton Platt
Well-Known Member
You are still just repackaging scripture. I know this is what you believe. Where is the evidence that it is really so?
Because of the accuracy of microwaves CMBR dating is accurate and Not out of harmony with Genesis. Remember all of the ' creative days ' are summed up by the word 'day ' Genesis 2:4.
God rested from his 'creative works'. As Jesus' recorded words say at John 5:17 that 'his Father works' and Jesus works.
The ' works ' of God - John 6:28-29 - are Not what we can call 'spiritual' works.
Jesus did the ' spiritual work ' as mentioned at Luke 4:43, and Jesus gave his followers a spiritual work to do - Matthew 24:14; Acts of the Apostles 1:8
For me, evidence is found in the internal harmony among the many Bible writers. Found it the Bible's harmonious corresponding or parallel cross-reference verses and passages.
For me, Luke 21:11 is tied into our day or time frame.
As Antony Flew concluded that 'there are evils in abundance which could Not be put down to a consequence of human sin'.
For me, the Bible fills in the gaps.