How Do Scientists Believe in God and Evolution?

I do not know what the evidence supports or does not support. I have never had any reason to look at the evidence for Creation or the Flood until now. I am here and the world is here so I see that as pretty good evidence for Creation. At least that is my theory. And from what I have been studying, the theory that I believe to be true (which is also held by the majority of people on this planet) seems to be better than any theory that scientists have invented.I have been reading this college textbook called "The Essential Cosmic Perspective" and it tells me a lot about what scientists think about the origin of the universe. To be quite honest, they do not know what they are talking about. That is not meant to be mean. It is the truth.Look at the Planck Era. I have never heard of this before. What does this book tell me? It is beyond the limit of science to understand the physical conditions during this era. Okay. The universe was incomprehensibly young. Okay. Current theories cannot adequately describe the extreme conditions that must have existed during the Planck Era. Okay.Well, immediately after this, they spend a whole lot of time telling me everything that happened in the next one thousandth of a second at the beginning of the universe. They go from having no idea about anything, to acting like they know everything about everything. I don't believe it. I think they go from knowing nothing, to knowing very little about anything as it relates to the Creation of the universe.And then somewhere else in this book they say they have reason to believe that most of the universe is not even made up of atoms but it is made up of dark matter, and dark energy. They don't know what it is, and they can not see it. They say they do not know the actual nature of this dark matter. And then they go on to say they know the precise percentages of the universe that are made up of dark matter, dark energy, and atoms. I don't believe it.It seems like it takes more faith to believe in these theories that scientists are treating as facts then it does to believe that God created the heavens and the earth. Maybe some day scientists will figure out how God did it. However, I kind of doubt it. It is going to be very difficult to get down to T=0. When they get real close to T=0, they may realize they are getting real close to God.

---

"There is one thing even more vital to science than intelligent methods; and that is, the sincere desire to find out the truth, whatever it may be." - Charles Sanders Pierce

Sometimes I have shake my head on the topic of EvC.Scientifically speaking, what makes evolution so special that you need (or not need) to spend time to persuade people into believing a "scientific theory" like...........Relativity.The facts about Relativity (or any so-called scientific theory) are so evident.......blah blah blah.Why people are not arguing about this regarding to relativity and any other scientific theory of the same facts and evidence.Mayhaps it's not a scientific theory at all or do you need faith or whatsoever to believe in ..... Relativity???????Edited by Hawkins, : No reason given.

What faith? I already explained to you that we're only reporting and concluding what the math is directly saying. We don't understand it at all because it's so flippin' different from everything that we thought we knew before we started actually trying to figure it out. It's hard work: we've only a couple hundred years of real, formalized science on a global scale to figure all of this out (less than that for evolution). First, the majority of the people on the planet do not hold the same "theory" as you: as many have repeated many times on this website, there are literally hundreds of creation myths, all of which are significantly different from one another. No matter what you believe, the majority of the people in the world disagree with you.Second, this is called "argument from incredulity": one's personal inability or unwillingness to understand or believe something does not make it false. I can't really understand anything about physics or advanced mathematics, but that doesn't mean it's all "suspect," "controversial" or "untrustworthy." I don't know how the Irish elk ever held its head up with a rack of antlers twelve feet across, but that doesn't mean it constantly tipped over on its face.Third, what theory are you talking about? All you have is "God did it," without any explanation at all as to how. You can't put this up as an explanation of how the universe was created, nor can you compare it to other theories that try to explain how the universe was "created," because you simply do not have an explanation beyond the agent that caused it all. I will not say that textbook writers didn't have the attitude you think they had: you may very well be right. But bad attitudes do not make people wrong. If you're basing your opinions on people's attitudes, your opinions are automatically unreliable, invalid, insignificant, and not worth discussing with anybody else. Bad attitudes are everywhere, and are actively promoting every opinion that has ever been had on this planet.I have had very bad experiences with Christians of all flavors telling me I'm going to Hell (with a capital "H") because I believe in the Book of Mormon. I have had Christians of all flavors spit at and mock all of my most cherished beliefs and tell me that I am an ignorant fool who has been led astray by false prophets and by the arm of Satan himself, and that my come-uppance is at the door already. Most of them do this without even knowing what my beliefs are in the first place. They automatically assume that they have all the answers about the proper way to get into Heaven, and every attempt I make to explain my own views is cut off with but laughter and rolling eyes and--I'm not kidding or exaggerating--fingers in ears while humming the "Hallelujah Chorus" or "Amazing Grace."Does this make Protestantism wrong? Once again, your personal disbelief doesn't mean a damn thing.And, just because we don't know what something is, doesn't mean we don't know how to detect it or what sorts of symptoms go along with it. Consider the weather: a few thousand years ago, nobody knew what clouds were, but they did know that clouds usually brought rain. According to your incredulity, they couldn't possibly know that rain was coming, because they didn't know what clouds were. Do you really believe this?

---

Darwin loves you.

"Mayhaps" people argue in defense of the ToE because it's under constant attack from superstitious half-wits.

First of all, Planck time is 5.39121x10[sup]-44[/sup] seconds. Or the amount of time it takes a photon to travel a Planck length. So saying they don't know what's going on during that first Planck time, while everything is in a singularity, which means a point at which our physics breaks down, doesn't mean a lot. After a Planck time, things start to make mathematical sense again, so saying they know what's going on a thousandth of a second (which is many, many Planck times), again, isn't unsurprising.As for Dark Matter and Dark Energy, those are fairly simple Physics equations. Essentially, it boils down to how much gravity we see is needed to keep galaxies from flying apart due to their speed of rotation. Once we know that, we look at the visible matter and calculate how much gravity that much mass would create. There is a huge difference in these numbers, so there must be something else causing that gravity...that "something else" is what we call Dark Matter. Dark Energy is much the same. Based on gravity, the Universe should be slowing down its expansion. Instead, we find it accelerating. Again, it's easy to calculate the energy needed to overcome gravity and accelerate the expansion at the rate we find. That energy is called Dark Energy. The fact that we don't know precisely what those are yet, is the hallmark of science. If we knew what everything was, there would be no need for science any more.

But scientists have. As far as the flood goes, the last of the major early creationist geologists seeking to document the global flood gave up in 1831.Since then the evidence against a global flood has increased greatly. I believe I have cited some from my own research, but you haven't responded to my posts.Face it, the global flood about 4,500 years ago is a myth.Edited by Coyote, : typo

It's because whining biatch biblical literalists never bat an eye lid about relativity. They only crawl out of the pews when someone suggests that the universe was not made in 6 days.Edited by Larni, : DVD extras.

I am sure that you have read a lot of posts on this website. Take a look at what you are reading. The sole purpose of this website is not to argue the scientific implications of different theories related to the origins of the universe and mankind. Many of the posts, even in the science forums, have a theological slant. They are intended to influence the way people view God. It seems that someone wants people to believe that God does not exist, and has never played a role in the world. We all have faith; it is simply what you believe to be true. You can have faith that there is a God, and He was involved in the Creation of the world. Or, you can have faith that there is no God, and He was not involved in the Creation of the world. Or, your faith can lie somewhere in between. No matter what your position, your position rests upon faith. Because as this forum has stated over and over again, you cannot prove or disprove the existence of God or the part that He has played in any event since the beginning of time. Everyone has faith in what they believe to be true. My theory is that God was involved in the Creation of the universe, and in the Creation of man. This theory is held by most of the people on this earth. Look at the statistics. Most of the people on this planet believe in God, and the existence of the supernatural realm. There may be differences in the details, but their general theory of the origin of the universe and man includes the supernatural. Most scientists do not seem to believe that God was involved in the Creation of the world or in the Creation of man. Once again there may be differences in the details, but their general theory does not include the supernatural. Where do you stand? Is your faith in God, or in "naturalistic" science? Do you allow for the possibility of supernatural explanations? It sounds like a good theory to me. "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." I am sure that most of your friends and family in Utah would agree with this theory. What makes you think that I or most of the world needs to know all of the details about anything? As a matter of fact, they don’t! They turn on their lights with little or no understanding of electricity. They drive their automobiles with little or no understanding of mechanical engineering. They use their computers with little or no understanding of structured programming. Most of the people on earth have little understanding about a lot of what surrounds them. Do you understand all about the electronics in your television set? Does that affect your ability to function as a normal American, and sit down and watch the thing? Most of the people on this planet do not need scientific explanations about the origin of the universe, and the evolution of mankind to function in this world. I have had the same experience on this forum. People have demeaned my God, they have used His name in vain, and they have implied that I am a fool for my faith. For some that may weaken their faith. It has the opposite effect for me. My faith becomes stronger. What does that have to do with the origin of the universe? It is not my personal disbelief that is at stake. I do believe in God. It appears that you may be the one who has placed your faith in something or someone other than the Creator.

---

"There is one thing even more vital to science than intelligent methods; and that is, the sincere desire to find out the truth, whatever it may be." - Charles Sanders Pierce

Hi Bluejay,I went back and noticed that you never answered the questions that were posed at the beginning of this thread.What role do you attribute to God in the Creation of the universe and man?Here are the questions that were orginally asked to scientists who believe in God and evolution: Thanks

---

"There is one thing even more vital to science than intelligent methods; and that is, the sincere desire to find out the truth, whatever it may be." - Charles Sanders Pierce

I apologize for not responding to your posts. Maybe I have not replied because that Coyote looks like he is giving me the "evil eye" or something. I am only kidding!I have not had the opportunity to study the geological implications of a global flood as of yet. My time is limited. I have already read a textbook on Biology, and Cosmology in the past few weeks. I have also done a lot of research to reply to specific posts. I have not even found a good Geology textbook. Fortunately, Geology was one of the basic science courses that I took in college a number of years ago. So, I am not totally clueless. When I do have the opportunity to study your research, I will reply. Maybe I should take your word for it, and that would save me a lot of study. What do you think?

---

"There is one thing even more vital to science than intelligent methods; and that is, the sincere desire to find out the truth, whatever it may be." - Charles Sanders Pierce

Perhaps I could get an answer to my posts as I have answered the questions that appeared in the first message.I have read the discussion and want to iterate the questions that we are asking:1. "How did we get here?" according to a creationist is answered (in a sense) because it is dismissed with something offhanded. Of course we want to know about creation with that kind of a question, but we also seem to want to accept a simple account that is told to us so that we can then get to the bigger questions. With creationists (refering to the word itself) there is no bigger question. "Creation" refers to how we begin.2. "How did we get here?" according to an evolutionist is not answered until all of the steps between the beginning and where we are now are thoroughly investigated. Evolution (the word) refers to step by step change and its analysis as a means to rationalizing our existence back far enough until we know what was there near the beginning and in this way we can attempt an explanation for what was at the beginnng and why just those things constituted a beginning, hopefully learning more in the process.At least with evolution, there is a process. With creation, there seems to be no process. With creation there is no study of the past in hopes of answering more fully the proverbial question. Now that we all study (because all humans become educated with the findings) our larger past, doesn't it make you wonder if evolutionist will really come any closer to answering the question than we had come before with the creation version?So change the question. Why don't we all change the question to "How can religion be relevant in a changing world?" I submit to you NOT that religion will answer that question any fuller, but that religion will present to us a new question that won't pretend to be answerable through study of nature. If we wish to know how to make use of religion and what role religion can still play in these more modern times, we should ask it and not hide behind the debate on the above question.Religion presents to us a "higher calling" and a "greater truth" than any we have known (in any way) before. Through the use of religion we hope to accomplish what? In my educated (since I have read many books written recently) guess, what we do with religion is TIE OURSELVES TO A HIGHER KINGDOM OF NATURE.This higher kingdom of nature I have named girasas. I (or rather Jesus Christ and others) have experienced what this higher kingdom can do and they have attempted to communicate to us their findings. This is scientific in nature (because ultimately all humans are scientific in their inquiry). We don't base conclusions on fantasy. We really need to be able to believe in each other's goodness. Jesus wasn't playing tiddly winks. He had a very important message for all of us and that message is that we can invite this kingdom into our lives and we can change and become "advanced" through association with this natural living thing.But I only discovered this through study. A new kingdom of nature descending through the humans ultimately means that we are ascending and this doesn't have to be a bad thing. After we ascend and evolve, we descend and evolve the lower kingdom. A very nice cyclic law can be found at work and then who cares how we got here?

Now what I sometimes question is this:Do scientists intend to continue to ignore this higher kingdom in some offhanded hope that they will go away?OrDo scientists actually enjoy reaching into the sketchy jaw-breaking past for answers that could be obtained another way because it is familiar to them? Are they more confident with the past because it is familiar to them?Yes, a new kingdom would be strange and wonderful, but the law says that we've done this before and maybe that is why we are so slow in reaching for it. It may hurt - a lot. No one likes to be made to look like a fool, which this higher kingdom is bound to make happen. How do we preserve some semblance of sanity through all this?While I put myself in this position of being in the right place at the right time (somehow this theory happened to me), I don't want to risk having my son grow up to some responsibility that he (based on past circumstances) isn't fitted to. I can't stand the idea that my son would communicate to people about a cross between girasas and humans by "dying" on a cross. I agree that it could be very, very, dangerous trying to give a girasas a full life when others are barely conceptualizing the possibility, so we just need to get everyone studying the written material that is here already. I'm not a writer. I'm a reader. Why can't our academic studies include this material? It is wonderful. It is fascinating. I could go every week and hear more, but it is also tedious and takes a tremendous amount of commitment and so if someone only has the stamina to endure a short course, they should be encouraged to do what they are able to do.Being in my position (a favorable one), I prefer to think that my "winnings" can be invested in temple building (according to the new writings) and in this way Christianity has to agree not to be overly threatened. We just want to study this material in a proper environment outside of the academic sphere.Edited by brendatucker, : question mark

Not true, at least not in the sense that you mean it.Not everyone bases their beliefs on faith as you do. Scientists base their beliefs on ever-accumulating evidence, and those beliefs are only ever tentative in nature. That makes science categorically different from religious faith, where the only excuse for evidence is the holy book and there is always great resistance to change.Really, if you want to discuss this in detail, it belongs on another thread. Perhaps you might like to start one, but before you do, you might like to familiarise yourself with the issues raised in this thread, Equating science with faith.I don't mean to be a pest, but you didn't reply to my last message. Does this mean that you are dropping the "evolution is a trick by Satan" line of argument?

---

Mutate and Survive

No.I think you give the publicity of this higher kingdom too much credit.Scientists do not ignore this higher kingdom because they hope it will go away.
Scientists ignore this higher kingdom because they are unaware of it's existence.First you need to show that this higher kingdom actually exists, then scientists can study it.Currently, your higher kingdom's chances of existence are equal to that of any figment of my imagination. But it doesn't have to remain so. Try answering any of these questions to start:Can you show some effect that is only caused by this higher kingdom?
Can you show how this higher kingdom is required to explain any effect that is currently unexplainable?
Can you show the difference between someone who is affiliated with this higher kingdom and someone who is not in a way that cannot be confused with any other explanation?

Yup. My word and that of tens of thousands of other scientists.And in addition to our "word" we have mountains of evidence to back it up.You could do worse.