Use of Science to Support Creationism

Hi Meagan, What do you think would happen if tomorrow a astroid the size of the US hit the Earth? All traces of mankind wiped out from existance. Then Billions of years later life emerges again to be concious and sentient and intelligent. Given that there is no record of any religions or text which theory would be redeveloped to explain existance. Evolution or Creationism? If Homosapiens were to become extinct tomorrow would bacteria hold any reverence to our passing? Would bacteria formulate a bacterial god to worship? I believe that humans matter because we say we do, not because there is some supernatural entity holding our species in higher regard to other lifeforms on this planet. God if he exist in my opinion is not a racist. You decided that there HAD to be a God because how could all the complexity that makes up existance come to be without a creator? The answer is simple if you remove yourself from the asking. There does not HAVE to be anything. I believe that the reason there is something rather than nothing is because (something ) is the natural state of the universe.

---

"One is punished most for ones virtues" Fredrick Neitzche

Hi Jar, good to see I could jar a response from you. My only point is the creation stories depend on man being a central figure to Gods creation. When you and I both know that humans tend to anthorpomorphsize God. There is a base ten number system because we have 10 digits, but it is arbitrary. I do not know the answer to 'does God exist'. I do know that there was a time when the question was never raised.

Ok, lets use Aliens as our new inhabitants. After man and all evidence of mans history are gone. Would aliens reconstruct the story of life on Earth as creationsist do, or would the theory of evolution re-emerge. Meaning we will be held accountable ; to stand in God's judgement? What about atheist? or pagans? or Hindus will they burn in hell for all eternity because they did not accept the Christian concept of God? Will someone who was not fortunate enough to be born in a Christian country with a Christian household be doomed to the lake of fire for not being born in the right place? Is mans eternal soul hinged simply on the place you were born? Yes disorder and decay, but what is decaying? SOMETHING.What I meant about " There doe not HAVE to be something. Is that humans place the importance of there HAVING to be a purpose, there HAVING to be a creator, there HAVING to be a reason for being. But in reality these are anthropomorphisms. There is something rather than nothing because the universe possibly exist in several dimentions / membranes. The big bang was possibly one membrane slamming into another.
This is called Brane theory. The natural state of the universe may very well be uncaused existance itself. Or as Saint Thomas Aquinas would put it. GOD.

---

"One is punished most for ones virtues" Fredrick Neitzche

Hi MeganC, Thanks for playing.point A. Revelations, the gospel of John of Patamos. First off it almost never made it in the cannon (Bible). It was most likely written right after the Jewish temples were destroyed by the Romans and John was writing this apocalyptic tale to harden stay fast Christians to keep the faith and further separate the movement from Judaism. The 666 reference some theologians say is the hebrew numerical value for Nero Ceasar who by the way was commonly referred to as the beast. Every single apocalyptic Christian Revelations doomsayer has been dead wrong with they're predictions from Dr. Miller in the 1800's actually predicting the date the world would end to The holocaust of WWII when many believe Hitler was the antichrist. David Koresh in Waco in the 1990s led his flock to they're deaths. Even the the Y2K predicted end of the world did not happen. So why should a story written by a pissed off Christian man that almost did not even make it in the Bible carry any weight? Because a bunch of Priest and Bishops all agreed what books would be concidered "Holy" and without err. In Nice Italy in the 300's. Even if fierce fights broke out and men gouged out eyes in anger, was this the holy spirit moving in these men?b. If Hell is the absence of God and God is Omnipresent then that is a contradiction. Also the church has altered the concept of hell historically to suit the church. Attendance was dropping off so venial sins were then deemed punishable by purgurtory, if enough indulgences and prayers were said you could be released from such. Mortal sins punishable by hell .
Purgutory?? and the selling of indulgences were ways to generate much needed money in the church. Instill fear, and reward compliance.c. The Bible is clear no man goes to the father except through Jesus Christ.
All who do not accept Jesus Christ as they're personal savior shall not see the kingdom of heaven. Now I know Christian like to expand on that and create loop holes. In fact in the 1960's during Vatican II the pope spoke from the chair and decreed that there are other ways to recieve grace other than through the Church sacrements.
But this was the good ol' Mother Catholic church. Baptist are not Catholic. And still do not traditionally adhere to Vatican II degrees.I have nothing more to add. I respect your beliefs and feel you are secure in them. I was only offering you another point of view. Thats whats great about forums such as these, variety is the spice of life. Be well.

---

"One is punished most for ones virtues" Fredrick Neitzche

Hi Willowtree,
I do not think that atheist use science to support atheism. (Some may albeit.)
I always thought that scientific methodology demands that what ever the premise/hypothesis it must be supported by evidence that can be held up to the scrutiny of all who may inquire. God is not supported by science because the very premise is based on the supernatural. God according to theist simply is. Period. End of story. Well this line of reasoning does not hold up well to inquiry.
Evidence for God is usually given as either a bible reference or Intelligent design argument/ anthropic argument, faith, first cause arguments.
These arguments are illogical and circular and do not hold up to the stringent inquiry that good science demands. There simply is no evidence of a unbias nature to support theist claims. If there were then there would be very few atheist indeed. So atheism does not use science for support. Rather the lack of support from science for theism breed atheism and a whole host of agnostics as well. This was not meant in any way meant to demean or offend you. It is simply just a opinion. Be well.

You make a good point Crash, there seems to be in my opinion a progression from theist to agnostic to atheist to nihlist.
Going from I believe in GOD. to...there may be a God or maybe not....to There is no god....to ...everything is abitrary and absurd. Agnostics have not given up that there may be a God. Atheist have not given up that even though there is no god the laws of nature explain existance. So my question is atheist when are you going to get over yourself and jump into the abyss of nihlism!

It does not matter if one is atheist or agnostic, you will both burn in hell equally so why not just get it over with and kill yourselves. What does it matter one less carbon based bag of water . Just kidding. LOL!!! *edit typo.This message has been edited by 1.61803, 10-28-2004 05:27 PM