On the Sixth Day, God Made the Dinosaurs

[Retro Rob]

These things are not equivalent. The existence of ET life doesn't break any natural observed law of the universe and our own existence demonstrates that it is possible. An instance of a human walking on liquid water would mean that our understanding of these laws is wrong as it would break many of the known mathematical constructs which so far have proven accurate, repeatable, and useful in their predictions

Fair point.

My biggest issue is that you've already admitted that we can't know that a God exists but then you believe in things that don't conform to what we know about physics and the universe (miracles basically) based on a Deity whose existence you can neither confirm or deny. If I believe in fairies, that's fine, but if someone said that fairies are the reason that someone in an ancient text converted water into wine then I've stretched credibility.

I've basically have been trying to play both sides of the fence and look at things from a scientific standpoint, and based on my faith as well...so I get your point.

A lot of these scientists I've met will strongly differentiate between a supernatural creator and miraculous events. They use science to explain natural events but believe that these events were set in motion by a higher intelligence. More like a watchmaker view of God. I have no issue with this really, I have issue when this belief interferes with their ability to find an observable, rational, verifiable, and repeatable explanation for the things we see.

I understand, but you said you have no issue with the "watchmaker" view, but then "find another explanation" for what we see? Am I reading you correctly?

That sounds a lot like Theistic Evolution, but you can't marry creation and evolution, IMHO.

I hope I am not misunderstanding you, but this how I interpreted your post.

This sentence is confusing. Yes, scientists who believe that there has to be ET life believe there has to be ET life. That doesn't mean every scientist believes this or that it is accepted as scientific law.

My bad. Basically, yeah.. some say it is, but the majority may not say with such certainty.

He was explaining that God isn't necessary to explain what we observe in the natural world. He was dispelling the God of the Gaps. Like anyone else, he can't prove the nonexistence of a creator that by nature can't be proven/disproven.

This is why I personally think that science should distance itself far from the word God because they get dangerously close, scientists who are Atheists, anyway, to making an assertion that God doesn't exists. I have interpreted certain statements as doing just that, though.

Science doesn't like supernatural explanations for natural events, but science doesn't care and can never know if there's some invisible, unknowable supernatural force guiding the universe through application of universal laws.

Is the Big Bang really a natrual event? It's only happened once, theoretically.

Natrual events are repeatable, testable, and oberservable. We've yet to see it happen again.

So your argument that you use that something can't come from nothing is something you don't actually believe in. You do believe that something can be eternal so you would have to concede that any scientist could say that the universe is eternal and it would be just as good an explanation.

The only difference is the SS theory has been proven false by the expansion of the Universe. I see what you're saying, but there isn't any equivalence.

Biblically, there is no evidence that God isn't enternal... Biblically speaking.

Everyone ultimately derives information through 'science' in the sense that science is simply investigation and observation of the natural world. Assuming you aren't a Biblical literalist, then you have used observation of the natural world to determine that certainly some things in the Bible appear to be inaccurate or metaphorical.

This isn't something I am going get into, honestly. The Bible isn't book designed to be taken either totally "Literal" or totally "metaphorical", without a mixture of the two... unless you think Jesus literally meant that a camel can pass through a needle's eye.

 

[BigDH01]

I understand, but you said you have no issue with the "watchmaker" view, but then "find another explanation" for what we see? Am I reading you correctly?

The watchmaker view is that some creator set everything in motion, created all the universal laws, constants, etc, and set things in motion. We can explain what we see by applying these laws, but we can never know in the end if these laws were created or random. What Hawkings and I would agree on is that we don't need an "active" God to explain what we see. We really don't *need* a creator to explain the origin of universal laws either, although some people choose to believe.

Is the Big Bang really a natrual event? It's only happened once, theoretically.

Only once that we've observed, but even then, it's still natural. I'm not sure frequency is what makes something natural or natural. Repeatability has more to do with experimentation and whether or not our hypotheses do a reasonable job predicting outcomes.

Natrual events are repeatable, testable, and oberservable. We've yet to see it happen again.

The results of experimentation are these things as part of the scientific method. Natural events are just that, they happen naturally and often by surprise and often don't repeat themselves in, at least, the exact same way.

The only difference is the SS theory has been proven false by the expansion of the Universe. I see what you're saying, but there isn't any equivalence.

The Bible says that God is eternal, but we can't prove or disprove this, we only have the word of the Bible. I could say that the universe is eternal and it would be an equally valid thing to say as it can neither be proven or disproven. In other words, I don't think it's fair to use an argument that says the universe had to come from something and then say God is eternal. There is no evidence to support either view.

This isn't something I am going get into, honestly. The Bible isn't book designed to be taken either totally "Literal" or totally "metaphorical", without a mixture of the two... unless you think Jesus literally meant that a camel can pass through a needle's eye.

I think that's an obvious case, but I was referring to those things which bend or break the laws of the natural universe we observe that, in my reading, were intended to be stories of actual events.

 

[caheomap]

I think there has to be a clear distinction made between someone who is "religious" or has faith in a greater deity or theology, versus pure religious zealotry and fundamentalism.

 

[zinfamous]

CK,

I don't know about that. My parents were and are religious fundamentalists. They were actually missonaries to Brazil. It was an interesting childhood for me. I was taught to believe that God created everything in 7 days, etc...

Whether you believe in evolution or Jesus does not really impact your ability to be a productive member of society. I have always considered evolution theory as very very "soft" science. Learn physics, chemistry, engineering and math and you will do just fine.

I am a software engineer now with children of my own. I am a non-practicing (somewhat agnostic) Christian so all that "poisoning" of my youth must not have stuck.

lol, sorry. there is nothing "soft" about evolutionary science. Evolutionary science is the foundation of biology, and knowledge gained through this is the basis of modern medicine.

All biology, today, is basically coming from genomic research. Bioinformatics, whole genome assembly...very little research is being published today without some form of bioinformatics.

chemistry is the "soft" part of biology, when all is said and done. 😉

 

[zinfamous]

I have to disagree with that statement. Evolution is a theory about how we got here (the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms).

I believe that microscopes and the scientific method have had the FUNDAMENTAL impact on our understanding of life. It does not take a belief in evolution to determine the purpose of each organ in the human body..... in fact, it is quite irrelevant. When you attempt to make evolution theory into more than it is, aren't you in reality making it into a religion?

oh dear....

 

[Onceler]

This reminds me of when I was nine I said that there was no santa claus. My aunt refused to let me open any of my gifts under the tree unless I said that there was. I refused. Later when my aunt had left my mom let me open my gifts(except for my aunt's whom she took with her, probably stuff I didn't want any way like shirts). Looking back on it now I think it is outright blasphemous what my aunt was telling me to do.
I think that it is foolish to think that we are the only intelligent life in the universe. God designed us and He designed others like us.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

This reminds me of when I was nine I said that there was no santa claus. My aunt refused to let me open any of my gifts under the tree unless I said that there was. I refused. Later when my aunt had left my mom let me open my gifts(except for my aunt's whom she took with her, probably stuff I didn't want any way like shirts). Looking back on it now I think it is outright blasphemous what my aunt was telling me to do.
I think that it is foolish to think that we are the only intelligent life in the universe. God designed us and He designed others like us.

Who knows the mind of God? If there are many intelligent species with free will, what if they err? How many forms does Christ have to take? How many crucifictions?

Just kicking the can around.

 

[Retro Rob]

The watchmaker view is that some creator set everything in motion, created all the universal laws, constants, etc, and set things in motion. We can explain what we see by applying these laws, but we can never know in the end if these laws were created or random. What Hawkings and I would agree on is that we don't need an "active" God to explain what we see. We really don't *need* a creator to explain the origin of universal laws either, although some people choose to believe.

What confuses me about people like Hawking is this: He can't say for certainty what "caused" all these things to come into play -- yet, he's so certain that we don't need an active God. Not knowing what caused something doesn't presuppose the absence of a God. He may as well say he has faith that we don't need a God, or believes as much.

I agree with HR - faith comes in many forms.

Only once that we've observed, but even then, it's still natural. I'm not sure frequency is what makes something natural or natural. Repeatability has more to do with experimentation and whether or not our hypotheses do a reasonable job predicting outcomes.

Well, since it has only happened once as far as we know, it could be a fluke and not natural at all. I don't think accidents really produce a "goldilocks" zone and jump-starts human life in these really prefect conditions for life.

The results of experimentation are these things as part of the scientific method. Natural events are just that, they happen naturally and often by surprise and often don't repeat themselves in, at least, the exact same way.

I think the search for Alien life is really for this one reason -- to prove we are a product of luck and "not the same way"... as you put it.

I think that's an obvious case, but I was referring to those things which bend or break the laws of the natural universe we observe that, in my reading, were intended to be stories of actual events.

Of course it an obvious case but I used that to show you that its foolhardy to read the Bible with either extreme -- all literal, or all metaphorical.

 

[sandorski]

What confuses me about people like Hawking is this: He can't say for certainty what "caused" all these things to come into play -- yet, he's so certain that we don't need an active God. Not knowing what caused something doesn't presuppose the absence of a God. He may as well say he has faith that we don't need a God, or believes as much.

I agree with HR - faith comes in many forms.




Well, since it has only happened once as far as we know, it could be a fluke and not natural at all. I don't think accidents really produce a "goldilocks" zone and jump-starts human life in these really prefect conditions for life.



I think the search for Alien life is really for this one reason -- to prove we are a product of luck and "not the same way"... as you put it.



Of course it an obvious case but I used that to show you that its foolhardy to read the Bible with either extreme -- all literal, or all metaphorical.

No active god is necessary, because no active god can be seen. The more we learn, the less supernatural our universe becomes.

We search for ET simply because we are curious and for the reason that it seems highly likely that many ETs exist. The only way to know is to look.

How does one determine which way to read the Bible? About the only consistent message that Believers seem to glean from the Bible is that their way of reading it is the right way and those who disagree are doing it wrong.

 

[Onceler]

There is a God but the bible is crap.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

I agree with HR - faith comes in many forms.

It may make you feel better to try to equate your belief in deities with the fact that science doesn't have all of the answers, but as has been pointed out many times, they are not the same thing. Science is not about "faith". It's about finding explanations for things based on available evidence, and admitting when we do not know something yet. Religion is about making up answers without evidence.

 

[Retro Rob]

How does one determine which way to read the Bible? About the only consistent message that Believers seem to glean from the Bible is that their way of reading it is the right way and those who disagree are doing it wrong.

The Bible is its best interpreter. You read something and find an explanation in other parts of the Bible. Really, no individual interpreting really needs to be done.

This is why I disagree with the opinion that Christians have to ignore the Hebrew Bible, or so-called "Old Testament". Yes, the Mosaic Law was abolished -- we're not tied to the law of the Hebrew Bible, but the we need it to explain things in the Greek Bible (NT) or everyone would just interpret as they see fit and think they're right, as you've said.

This answers the uneducated "yall still eat shrimp and mix fabrics" comments becasue firstly, how many "Christians" were under the Mosaic Law? None -- there was no Christianity during the time of the Hebrew Bible. Secondly, and more importantly, the life and death of Jesus established Christianity and did away with that old Covenant.

This is very basic and it baffles my mind how even some of the most educated anti-Bible people don't even acknowledge this or even know it, and still say stupid stuff like "why don't Christians kills gays in this country if they're following the Bible". Well, we were NEVER under the command to -- only the Jews were. If anything, ignorance of basic Bible teachings are rampant in this world.

 

[sandorski]

The Bible is its best interpreter. You read something and find an explanation in other parts of the Bible. Really, no individual interpreting really needs to be done.

This is why I disagree with the opinion that Christians have to ignore the Hebrew Bible, or so-called "Old Testament". Yes, the Mosaic Law was abolished -- we're not tied to the law of the Hebrew Bible, but the we need it to explain things in the Greek Bible (NT) or everyone would just interpret as they see fit and think they're right, as you've said.

This answers the uneducated "yall still eat shrimp and mix fabrics" comments becasue firstly, how many "Christians" were under the Mosaic Law? None -- there was no Christianity during the time of the Hebrew Bible. Secondly, and more importantly, the life and death of Jesus established Christianity and did away with that old Covenant.

This is very basic and it baffles my mind how even some of the most educated anti-Bible people don't even acknowledge this or even know it, and still say stupid stuff like "why don't Christians kills gays in this country if they're following the Bible". Well, we were NEVER under the command to -- only the Jews were. If anything, ignorance of basic Bible teachings are rampant in this world.

If that were true, there would be far less division amongst those who profess to follow it. Not just that though, by using the Bible as it's own interpreter, the reader simply ignores the blatant errors right in front them.

You can't, and I mean this, remove your Intellect from the process and expect any kind of logical outcome. The Bible can not interpret itself, it requires the input of the Reader. Due to the errors and inconsistencies of the Bible, there is much confusion and dischord amongst Believers as every single one of them is trying to ignore/dismiss these errors/inconsistencies in order to maintain their Faith.

 

[PowerEngineer]

What confuses me about people like Hawking is this: He can't say for certainty what "caused" all these things to come into play -- yet, he's so certain that we don't need an active God. Not knowing what caused something doesn't presuppose the absence of a God. He may as well say he has faith that we don't need a God, or believes as much.

What confuses me is why you are still confused. 😵

His argument is that there's enough of a framework of scientific theories to strongly suggest that everything we experience in this universe can be understood without resorting to a supernatural explanation. Put another way, the so-called "laws of nature" (through continual testing and correcting) seem capable of eventually explaining everything we think of as being "of this world". There's nothing in this universe that seems to have anything other than a "natural" (i.e. explainable by science) cause. No supernatural (i.e. unexplainable by science) explanations seem to be needed. No miracles evident. No action by a supernatural being required.

This isn't a statement of faith; it is a postulate that is defensible now and will be continually tested into the future. It we run into something that science can't hope to explain "inside" the universe (over a long period of time) then it'll be proven wrong.

Even assuming it's right, it doesn't mean that there is not (or can not be) a supernatural being behind our universe and its laws of nature. It does mean that there doesn't have to be one. Then, it becomes a matter of faith (or preference) to decide to believe in a supernatural being or not. Hawking has decided (as a matter of faith or preference) that a supernatural being does not exist. You have chosen to believe differently. IMHO both are equally reasonable choices.

 

[randomrogue]

I have come to a startling realization. As of late all the religious people I meet are strikingly ignorant. They are the type of people who don't read the news and didn't do well in school. They use a remarkable number of fallacies when they try to have a discussion.

Just because you don't understand something doesn't mean God did it. That kind of logic is absurd.

Our search for Alien life is because we are naturally curious. Put a human being in a room and it will always gravitate to another person. Those with half a brain will naturally ask questions. We don't want to be alone. We don't want to be insignificant. This is why people need "god".

I have an American friend visiting who is religious. It's almost like having that redneck hillbilly friend in town saying embarrassing things at the fine dining table with high class friends since someone will mention a current event and they'll say "Well they needed more god" or "They needed more Church". Ugh. Religion and faith should be a personal thing. Leave it out of the classroom and intelligent discussions that the grown ups are having.

 

[Retro Rob]

What confuses me is why you are still confused. 😵

His argument is that there's enough of a framework of scientific theories to strongly suggest that everything we experience in this universe can be understood without resorting to a supernatural explanation. Put another way, the so-called "laws of nature" (through continual testing and correcting) seem capable of eventually explaining everything we think of as being "of this world". There's nothing in this universe that seems to have anything other than a "natural" (i.e. explainable by science) cause. No supernatural (i.e. unexplainable by science) explanations seem to be needed. No miracles evident. No action by a supernatural being required.

This isn't a statement of faith; it is a postulate that is defensible now and will be continually tested into the future. It we run into something that science can't hope to explain "inside" the universe (over a long period of time) then it'll be proven wrong.

Even assuming it's right, it doesn't mean that there is not (or can not be) a supernatural being behind our universe and its laws of nature. It does mean that there doesn't have to be one. Then, it becomes a matter of faith (or preference) to decide to believe in a supernatural being or not. Hawking has decided (as a matter of faith or preference) that a supernatural being does not exist. You have chosen to believe differently. IMHO both are equally reasonable choices.

In other words, the supernatrual bias is still there. Simply put, science doesn't want a supernatrual explanation.

You need to be honest here and admit that. It's less about evidence and more about what we don't want as an explanation. The scientific bias, which you acknowledged, of the 20th centrury hasn't really been corrected.

This is the nature of human. As Hawking admitted, and I applaud him for being honest, people didn't want a supernatural explanation, so they made something up -- the SS theory -- not because it was plausible, but because they were afraid of admitting the obvious... that the Universe at least had a beginning. This is con-man mentality.

The dance continues down to this day -- they'll continue to entertain theories, as they have demonstrated in the past, to avoid the obvious. Science doesn't exactly have a clean tract record of honesty so I question what they "theorize" compared to what they "know" and I critically examine them and what they find

It has been said that life has no purpose -- there's not rhyme or reason to the Universe. Well, this is an empty-headed mentality designed to keep science from answering the burning question: Why are we here? How helpful can something really be if it avoids answering natural human questions?

Its good to know that billions of people can still think for themselves and look for answers to these questions instead of the dead-end, wrong headed assumption that science gives us pertaining to the natrual work that nothing we see in the beautiful night sky has purpose, or the beautiful art-work we see doesn't need an artist, etc. 🙂

 

[Charles Kozierok]

In other words, the supernatrual bias is still there. Simply put, science doesn't want a supernatrual explanation.

That's correct, and everyone has been saying it from the beginning. "Supernatural explanation" is an oxymoron -- it doesn't explain a thing. It's a declaration of failure in explaining and an abandonment of the attempt.

It's less about evidence and more about what we don't want as an explanation.

And that is not correct. You keep repeating it because you very much want it to be true, but it is not.

The dance continues down to this day -- they'll continue to entertain theories, as they have demonstrated in the past, to avoid the obvious.

"Entertaining theories" is another term for "looking at evidence and thinking rationally". And yes, that is the main difference between science, which considers that essential, and religion, which considers it unacceptable.

It has been said that life has no purpose -- there's not rhyme or reason to the Universe. Well, this is an empty-headed mentality designed to keep science from answering the burning question: Why are we here? How helpful can something really be if it avoids answering natural human questions?

How helpful can religion be when it answers absolutely nothing, and convinces millions of people to squander their lives?

 

[SMOGZINN]

Well, this is an empty-headed mentality designed to keep science from answering the burning question: Why are we here? How helpful can something really be if it avoids answering natural human questions?

CK did a good job of replying to the rest of it, but I wanted to add something to this sentence.

Science does work to answer the big 'Why are we here?' question. It's current answer is 'We don't know, but it looks like there is no reason at all'. That is an answer. It just is not the one you want.

The important thing about science is it does not claim to have all the answers. There is quite a lot that we don't know yet. But we have to accept that the answer just might be that life does not have a reason.

 

[Retro Rob]

CK did a good job of replying to the rest of it, but I wanted to add something to this sentence.

Science does work to answer the big 'Why are we here?' question. It's current answer is 'We don't know, but it looks like there is no reason at all'. That is an answer. It just is not the one you want.

The important thing about science is it does not claim to have all the answers. There is quite a lot that we don't know yet. But we have to accept that the answer just might be that life does not have a reason.

Hmm.. I can respect this reply. The bias I speak about really manifests itself in this question and your reply. What about: are we looking in the right place to find a "why" answer? A lot of unanswered questions in life aren't answered because we may be looking in the wrong place or asking the wrong people.

Just because my car keys aren't under the couch (where I usually find my lost items) doesn't mean they're unfindable. They may be under the coffee table or even in my jacket pocket.

So are you saying that if science can't answer something, it's futile to look elsewhere, or there simply is no answer? And I mean questions that are reasonable.

 

[JoetheLion]

There is a lovely museum of creation. Enjoy:
http://urchinmovement.com/2010/09/29/the-urchins-visit-the-creation-museum-a-photo-essay/

http://web.mit.edu/gjordan/www/creation/slides/_DSC2310.html

Enjoy! 😉

 

[SMOGZINN]

Hmm.. I can respect this reply. The bias I speak about really manifests itself in this question and your reply. What about: are we looking in the right place to find a "why" answer? A lot of unanswered questions in life aren't answered because we may be looking in the wrong place or asking the wrong people.

Just because my car keys aren't under the couch (where I usually find my lost items) doesn't mean they're unfindable. They may be under the coffee table or even in my jacket pocket.

So are you saying that if science can't answer something, it's futile to look elsewhere, or there simply is no answer? And I mean questions that are reasonable.

Science is not monolithic. There are lots of people working on these answers, and they are looking in lots of different places for the answers. There are many, many, many failed hypotheses for each one that becomes a theory, and then the theories must go though peer review to be widely accepted. Science is a bottom up approach.

 

[Red Squirrel]

There is a lovely museum of creation. Enjoy:
http://urchinmovement.com/2010/09/29/the-urchins-visit-the-creation-museum-a-photo-essay/

http://web.mit.edu/gjordan/www/creation/slides/_DSC2310.html

Enjoy! 😉

That would be an awesome museum to go to.

Some reject God, because they just can't comprehend the awesomeness of a being that is and always will be beyond our scientific understanding.

 

[randomrogue]

Hmm.. I can respect this reply. The bias I speak about really manifests itself in this question and your reply. What about: are we looking in the right place to find a "why" answer? A lot of unanswered questions in life aren't answered because we may be looking in the wrong place or asking the wrong people.

Just because my car keys aren't under the couch (where I usually find my lost items) doesn't mean they're unfindable. They may be under the coffee table or even in my jacket pocket.

So are you saying that if science can't answer something, it's futile to look elsewhere, or there simply is no answer? And I mean questions that are reasonable.

Take a cosmology course and at the end, if you're like me, you'll want to know more. The problem is that science isn't just going to make up something. That's what religion does. They make up something with no facts, evidence, or even reasoning. My professor was honest though he just said "the rest is left to faith since we don't know".

Eventually we might be able to see other dimensions, bypass space/time, etc and get some more answers but until then we aren't just going to make them up.

 

[woolfe9998]

Eventually we might be able to see other dimensions, bypass space/time, etc and get some more answers but until then we aren't just going to make them up.

That is the crux of the problem. Religion exists because people want answers now, rather than to wait for science to find them. This is because religion satisfies an array of emotional needs, not least of which is assuaging our fear of death. None of those needs are met by waiting for science. So religion just makes stuff up to supply the answers.

 

[Retro Rob]

That is the crux of the problem. Religion exists because people want answers now, rather than to wait for science to find them. This is because religion satisfies an array of emotional needs, not least of which is assuaging our fear of death. None of those needs are met by waiting for science. So religion just makes stuff up to supply the answers.

Sure, religion is defintely used as an emotional crutch and so forth, but this isn't the reason its here... unless you're willing to prove that that its only here because people want answers now.

This, I think, is the issue: How can the Bible supply answers so quickly and seemingly completely? In a prescientifc age and people are supplying us with answers thousands of years down the line?

The way thinking people approach this issue, IMO, is due to the impossibility that a book as old as the Bible can give people answers about why evil exist and why people feel life has a purpose and why people believe God exists, etc, before we were able to measure the age of the Universe. If you think this is all made up, then I'm waiting for some evidence from you.

Yet, the Bible is full of practical value indispensible for us even today:

(Deuteronomy 23:12, 13) If they touched a dead animal or human, the Israelites had to wash with water. (Leviticus 11:27, 28; Numbers 19:14-16) Lepers back then were quarantined until a physical examination confirmed that they were no longer contagious.—Leviticus 13:1-8.

These things are obvious now, but the point is that these things predated modern science by a longshot.

Shucks, even some of the things Jesus taught is valuable and used today.

So, the book is much more than an "emotional lift" and this is why people like myself put stock into it. Again, its not a scientifc textbook -- its designed to give us information about God and his purpose...so you have to examine it with that in mind and not from a scientifc viewpoint or it won't make sense to you.