Quote
Science has never 'conspired' to deny God and the works of God, science never has and never will be able to refute God. With the advancement of the sciences, theories will be refuted, evolutionary and creationary. I love science and it is a friend to Creation.
I agree. Science will never be able to deny God. Only man tries to deny God.
Scientific theories do come and go, but some theories, like Evolution are built upon and become more concrete as time passes. Science has been the death knell for the Creationist Christian interpretation. Despite it's "sophistication", Creationism is only growing where it is introduced into areas of the world with low levels of education (third world countries and dare I say it, southern states of the US, y'all) Make one Creationist claim of fact on this board, and see how friendly science is to it. Read mainstream sciences literature and see how friendly it is to it.
Quote
Something such as addition, we can 'prove' that 1+3=4 by taking 1 object and 3 objects and making them add up together to 4. But evolution seriously requires for it to be a 'proof' that you MUST be able to observe it happening. You can't take small changes and 'theorize' that if you take many of these small changes and add them up to one big change, this is no proof, the evidence can be 'interpereted' different ways logicly.
The validity of interpretive sciences (and there are many of them) has been articulated in this forum and extensively on Talkorigins. An associate of mine is a Creationist and also a lawyer. He also questions the validity of interpretive sciences (stating the creationist cry of "Were you there?" in relation to the age of the earth). Of course, in law he deals with circumstantial evidence on a daily basis, and he has no answer to this hypocracy in his reasoning.
Quote
Technically God is really not 'obvious'. I believe that there is a God and that that God is the Biblical God. Why? Because when I look at the evidence, I can see my interperetation of that evidence and see that it is the most logical and reasonable choice based on what we can observe. Are scientists guilty? Sure, but thats what they believe because of their interperetation of the evidence. But I can look at their interperetation and can say that many of them are touching the borderline of science and pure fantasy, rather than science and theory. To try and 'replace' their theories with a God puts them in so much danger. To dismiss the supernatural is to put the whole idea of evolution in jeopardy.
God is not really obvious, but even though I am a Christian, I disagree with your following sentiments. I attempted an evidentiary path to God and failed. The history of Bible development, Bible interpretation, the history of the Christian church, most Christian apologetics and the modern day beliefs and practices of many modern Christianity (Bible Numerics, Bible Codes, Pyrimadology, British Isralite theories, Creationism and other Christian "sciences") destroy such a path. The path that many Christians and I took to God was purely emotive and subjective. Having been there myself, I understand why my scientific friends cannot find a path to God through the material world and rationale thought. God calls our hearts.
[This message has been edited by Light, 12-30-2003]
™ Version 4.2
