And they believe this is science and not a religion.

In the opening of any book today that involves origins, dinosaurs, ECT. you can always expect to see the term billions of years as they know for a fact. Like some one was there to record this event.
Well here is another fine example of the evolutionist religious belief.

From the book Natural Wonders of the World, by P.J. Banyard, Page 6

Once there was nothing. There was no space and there was no time. (Now you will have to understand this if there is nothing the laws of conservation of energy state you can not create or destroy matter, in short nothing can not make something. This is a religious belief on the evolutionist part that this can happen.)(Here is the exciting part)Then,between 13 and 18 billion years ago, all the primeval matter which makes up the universe (here it comes)burst out from another dimension and exploded.

So no one was there to record when the event happend thats why they can not narrow down the time line, but hey the other dimension thing is cool.
They try to say my religious belief hinders my ability to discern science. Well you have a bigger faith based religion then I do. I have a God who told man how he did it (not all of the finer details) but that he did it. And you on the other hand have a belief system based upon interpretation of visible evidence today, with the assumed backward winding of the process to nothing exploding out of another dimension wow. All praise the mighty nothing.

The book is full of evolutionary statements that start off with the unsure words like; might have, could have, we think, seems to, and then finish as though they have the facts to prove their statements.

No one can prove 100% that the Bible is how the universe and all living things got here or that The Big Nothing From Another Dimension created the universe and all living beings.

But you can rest assured that science proves the Bible with out the use of smoke and mirrors more that the ever changing theory of evolution does.

“But who/what made God/Jesus? Who created the Creator?
How do we know that what we know of as God is not just some low level manager in a much bigger organization?”(Jeff Gordon)

Excellent questions.

First, Coyoteman posted the 8 definitions he got for apologetics; they were fine, but he made an assumption that was incorrect. Philosophy and theology are sciences. That may irritate geologists, chemists, engineers, etcetera, but nonetheless, philosophers and theologists are fellow scientists. They use reason to make logical deductions, just as any scientist uses the evidence you have been discussing. They may not have laboratories with meters, chemicals and such, since they deal in ideas. If one denies that one can deduce truth by use of the mind, I’m afraid all of us are lost, as well as the geologists, chemists and engineers.

Who created the Creator? Nobody. That’s the result of following a cause and effect logic. Every effect (action) has a cause. If one follows causes back, one comes to the realization, there must be a “first cause,” which was not caused by anything else. That is exactly where this thread started, by the claim that “stuff” just appeared, as by magic, from some other dimension. If we’re dealing with some low level management type here, we haven’t got back to the “uncaused” Cause, and we need to keep going. We need not personally talk to the Cause to understand it, any more than we need to feel the bones of a dinosaur to understand what it is. Philosophy is not necessarily religious, but in any secular philosophy class in any college (maybe I shouldn’t make this statement nowadays, but when I was in college, it was so), one of the first questions to be addressed was “Is there a god?” The answer is always, yes. There are a variety of flavors of methods to get there, but it it a logical necessity, and once one has answered that question, there are an infinite number of directions one can go from there to further questions that come from that answer. That is where one may be entering the field of theology. Since you have mentioned the Name, Jesus, you have pretty much delineated Christianity. That takes one into theology. One may investigate the philosophy back to well before Christianity in non religious books/papers, and discover much the same.

Most of these evolution/big bang threads rarely get into the questions you pose, and that is why they end up with name calling and silly arguments over words that without some basis or foundation, have quite different meanings to different people with different assumptions.

One can make philosophical deductions about the “First Cause,” and base one’s beliefs upon that. Further “proof” may have to be accepted from what we refer to as revealed truth. That’s where one has to make some leap, but that is well after one has deduced that the “First Cause” actually exists. That is one of the questions one arrives at after that first philosophical proof. Since this “what/who”, as you put it, exists, what would He want from the creatures He created?

One may deny that the “First Cause” created the universe as presumably, He wrote in the books we are referring to in this thread, but that is quite a different question than whether He exists.

I’m not going to try to explain the philosophies for these questions, because I’m not a philosopher and anyone can look it up, and it’s very easy with computers. You can look up Augustine in the 4-5th centuries, Aquinas in the 13th, or go back in the BC’s where Aquinas started. But be assured, logical truths are not easily denied without giving up logic, and when one does that, he cuts off the limb he’s sitting upon. -Glenn

First, Coyoteman posted the 8 definitions he got for apologetics; they were fine, but he made an assumption that was incorrect. Philosophy and theology are sciences.

I have to disagree with you there. I doubt philosophy is a science, and I know theology is not a science unless you are speaking of something like the study of comparative religions (as is often taught in fields such as anthropology).

Theology is not a science because it does not rely on the scientific method. Its "evidence" comes from scripture and divine revelation, not from research and investigation, leading to data and theory. This is the opposite of science.

For most theologies, new discoveries are the last thing that they want to see, as new discoveries might cast doubt on existing belief and dogma!

“Once we get back to the unknown “first cause” then we are obviously dealing with the unknown. The unknown in this case being totally unknown with no facts existing to support any hypothesis. Any and all conjectures about the nature of the totally unknown are all equally valid creations of the imagination.”(Jeff Gordon)

You are correct except for your last sentence. The “first cause” is a logical necessity. We (men) are logical creatures, and we like to think we can use our faculties to discern truth. Some things, obviously, make sense to us, others do not. I could say:

1. The universe popped out of some different dimension and exploded. (what started this thread, by a scientist who makes some assumptions)

2. A “First Cause” created the universe from nothing.(What Christians and Jews call “God.”)

3. A pre-existing 1959 Chevy spewed the universe out of the tailpipe, and the carbon monoxide exploded.

#3 is not equally valid as #1 & #2 might be.

We know the universe exists, and we are relatively sure that it didn’t originate from a 1959 Chevy. Whatever conjectures we consider, we need to look at the source of the information, and then consider that source. Using our logic (some say, “scientific methods”), we contemplate the possibilities and probabilities. We must rule out any which make no logical sense...maybe the 1959 Chevy. Since there is no hard evidence, we are left with philosophical possibilities. We know, from experience, all effects have some cause, but we always return to some ultimate cause, that started everything. It is a logical necessity.

It seems, Jeff, that you have pointed toward the truth, but then tried to get away from trying to discern that very truth, by saying anything is valid. “Anything” isn’t valid, but some things are valid, for an explanation. -Glenn

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.