... not because of consensus but because all the current theories have about the same amount of support and about the same amount of contradictory evidence. It's really quite an embarrassment (for "Science") to have so much hard data and no solid conclusions.
Scientists are not embarrassed by behaving rationally.
"According to science, the universe is HUGE, and we are but a mere speck."
But then "Science" is no less biased or based on hope and faith than the Pope. Science has "Faith" that a majority of "lab coats" will agree that they have followed a good process and that all these white coats will agree with the conclusions drawn from the data. But valid conclusions can be swept under the rug and ignored if they don't fit the biases of the majority.
To suggest we are a "mere speck" is not accurate and shows a huge ego. According to "Science" the universe is infinite. That means we are so small that we don't actually exist in the grand scheme of things. In fact, "Science" is nothing and knows nothing about nothing compared to the infinite amount of universe outside of what we know.
Ahh, but that would be going too far. Science isn't ready to admit that we know nothing. That doesn't leave room for the man-ego to boast that science knows just about all that there is to know.
Yet, I just illustrated that we know less than nothing. Especially about the infinite that we don't know. That's why there must be a Creator. Because if there isn't, then we know nothing at all.
But if there is, then we aren't just less than a speck. Then we are actually the reason for the rest to exist. And clearly we still don't know everything there is to know.
But at least we can relax and look forward to being with The One who does.
Carl Sagan seems like such a pleasant fellow. I wonder if his three wives have the same opinion? They didn't seem too happy. Being a Pot-smoking Stoner, I would think he'd be easier to get along with. What a great drug-induced smile....eh?
Well, that was incoherent. But you seem to be taking the assurance of scientists that they don't know everything as meaning that you know "less than nothing".
You may, indeed, know less than nothing --- indeed, your post appears to confirm this hypothesis. But this disability does not follow from the fact that scientists say that they don't know everything. It seems, in fact, to follow from you swallowing a load of half-baked tripe.
"An omnipotent and omniscient God could have created the universe as-is 5 minutes ago with all memories etc intact."
No, that would have bypassed the option for man to choose Sin....
You would in fact have that option whether the world was magicked into existence five minutes ago or six thousand years ago, since your capacity to exercise your free will has nothing to do with the age of the Earth.
"Scientists are not embarrassed by behaving rationally. "
LOL! You've not been around Scientists! I've seen them escorted by security out of the building after throwing chairs. I've seem them escorted out for lieing, cheating, and even stealing. Just like the rest of the population. Rational thought is very far from the scientific method.
In the first place, the fact that sometimes scientists behave irrationally does not contradict my statement that they are not embarrassed by acting rationally.
In the second place, you seem to be conflating the scientific method with what scientists do in their private lives.
Yes it does. Not that I care about our observed age of the earth, just that history, as told in the scriptures, is important in that it tells what has taken place.
Even assuming this amusing fantasy to be true, it does not mean that in principle you would have been unable to choose to be sinful if the world had been created five minutes ago.
After all, in your fantasy world Adam was perfectly capable of choosing sin without the world being six thousand years old when he did so.
At a certain time in the past, we chose sin, so God had to do something to make up for our choice. We chose Death. So God had to fix that problem. That's actually when time started. The clock didn't start ticking till we choose not to be in fellowship with God. Before that, time didn't exist... As we know it.
And now you're making up your own theology.
For a man who claims to know "less than nothing", you sometimes seem awfully self-assured.
See.....this is the ONLY point at which we differ. The rest, we fully agree on. I even get my data from "your" team. It makes more sense from my view. The other side goes against the laws of physics. Everything degrades down. Nothing evolves up to more a more complex system.
This is not actually data produced by our team (Team Science! Go Team!)
It's actually a falsehood that non-scientists have made up as part of their endless futile attempts to deny reality.
Agreed. This is one good reason why "creation" is a fairy-story for children.
#2 Everything degrades down. Nothing evolves up to more a more complex system. (Evolution "up" is impossible)
But this is, of course, not true.
(Again, Evolution as a source of life is contrary to Science. Evolution as a way to cope with decay and death is valid. Life DOES change to cope with a decay in the environment. But no NEW information is created or added.)
So people keep telling me. Curiously enough, all these people have one thing in common: gross scientific illiteracy.
Scientists, meanwhile, keep telling me stuff like this:
Since its first appearance on Earth, life has taken many forms, all of which continue to evolve, in ways which palaeontology and the modern biological and biochemical sciences are describing and independently confirming with increasing precision.
--- Albanian Academy of Sciences; National Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences, Argentina; Australian Academy of Science; Austrian Academy of Sciences; Bangladesh Academy of Sciences; The Royal Academies for Science and the Arts of Belgium; Academy of Sciences and Arts of Bosnia and Herzegovina; Brazilian Academy of Sciences; Bulgarian Academy of Sciences; The Academies of Arts, Humanities and Sciences of Canada; Academia Chilena de Ciencias; Chinese Academy of Sciences; Academia Sinica, China, Taiwan; Colombian Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences; Croatian Academy of Arts and Sciences; Cuban Academy of Sciences; Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic; Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters; Academy of Scientific Research and Technology, Egypt; Académie des Sciences, France; Union of German Academies of Sciences and Humanities; The Academy of Athens, Greece; Hungarian Academy of Sciences; Indian National Science Academy; Indonesian Academy of Sciences; Academy of Sciences of the Islamic Republic of Iran; Royal Irish Academy; Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities; Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Italy; Science Council of Japan; Kenya National Academy of Sciences; National Academy of Sciences of the Kyrgyz Republic; Latvian Academy of Sciences; Lithuanian Academy of Sciences; Macedonian Academy of Sciences and Arts; Academia Mexicana de Ciencias; Mongolian Academy of Sciences; Academy of the Kingdom of Morocco; The Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences; Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand; Nigerian Academy of Sciences; Pakistan Academy of Sciences; Palestine Academy for Science and Technology; Academia Nacional de Ciencias del Peru; National Academy of Science and Technology, The Philippines; Polish Academy of Sciences; Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal; Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts; Singapore National Academy of Sciences; Slovak Academy of Sciences; Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts; Academy of Science of South Africa; Royal Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences of Spain; National Academy of Sciences, Sri Lanka; Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences; Council of the Swiss Scientific Academies; Academy of Sciences, Republic of Tajikistan; Turkish Academy of Sciences; The Uganda National Academy of Sciences; The Royal Society, UK; US National Academy of Sciences; Uzbekistan Academy of Sciences; Academia de Ciencias Físicas, Matemáticas y Naturales de Venezuela; Zimbabwe Academy of Sciences; The Caribbean Academy of Sciences; African Academy of Sciences; The Academy of Sciences for the Developing World (TWAS); The Executive Board of the International Council for Science (ICSU).
So the question I have to ask myself is this: who knows more about science --- scientists, or people who make stuff up?