Do u belive in God or Science?

As I said, I can name dozens, it is you who won't even acknowledge ONE, and so argue in bad faith. These are evidential problems, not logical. ANYONE could find them with a quick Google search, from both secular or Christian sources. Below is one summary:

http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html

 

I believe that there was a God who created the whole universe and I also believe that Science is part of the whole creation and is necessary to expand our understanding of the physical world.

 

Don't believe, belief is not pathway to truth. Actually read what science has discovered. If you care what is real.

http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html
That site is created by people that are not scientists. Those people just read text by scientists and interpretate it like they do with the bible.
I don't have time to address everything that is wrong there. But for an example:
They think that it's a problem that there are only microevolutions in frutflyes. Actually that is not the case. We can only observe microevolutions, that proves that evolution is possible. The problem is that if we want them to turn into another spiecis then you have to have atleast 100 000 years worth of microevolutions. We simply can't reproduce that. But we have dna, fossiles and other stuff.

That is plain wrong! We have those middle parts as well.

You have to stop reading christian resources that try to bend the reality in the favour of christianity. Got to talkorigins.com for an example.

 

Yep agree, solely 'faith method' that brought by religion could not easily -or can I say hardly- accepted and might loose another cracks.

Ah I can't wait to see orang utan evolved into a human soon. Isn't that it?

 

Great thing about science is that if evolution or any theory is proved wrong then you get a noble prize and it will be a world wide known fenomenon.

No you can't see that probably ever, becouse we didn't come form orangutans we shared common ancester with great apes. We have the same genes but one cromosome is fused.

But after 100 000 years you would probably see some evolution in orangutans.

 

So there be God or there be Darwin God?

 

You have to stop pushing your absolutist, dogmatic belief that only atheist/naturalistic interpretations of the evidence are valid (or are the only ones that exist), and admit there are scientific difficulties with evolution. At this point you are denying the entire existence of the alternative interpretation, and the existence of any negatives on your side, and anyone can see that's unrealistic. Talkorigins is the most stilted and dishonest sites on the origins issue, which uses the same misleading tactics, to bend reality to their side.

Here are additional sites that present the truth about difficulties with evolution, as explained by non-creationists and scientists:

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/12/top_five_probl067431.html
http://www.icr.org/article/202/
http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/locke.html
http://www.programmed-aging.org/theories/evolution_issues.html

 

There is no god, darwin didn't create anything, he just described what he observed.

There are no scientific difficulties. Your fellow believers believe evolution. The dna evidence alone proves evolution.

98% of scientist are atheists. Don't be a child and believe that there is magic, are you 10 years old?
You think that lying theist are right and brilliant men like Dawkins and Krauss are talking nonce?

 

I BELIVE IN GOD AND IN HIS MIGHTY POWER, and i believe in that science is only a small portion of God's creation.

 

"God or Science" is like asking "Jam or Bread" - The two don't need to be exclusive of one another. Because of personal experiences, testimony and faith develops within a person, and a true believer must be willing to reconcile that with with what we understand about our own world. Likewise, a true scientist is fully aware that science is always changing and evolving and progressing. Scientists, for the most part, don't understand faith. Faith leaders (such as Abraham or Moses) for the most part don't understant science. That doesn't mean they have to be enemies. They are equally as important in our progression and growth as spiritual, intellectual beings.

 

If you don't understand evolution:


If you believe that science is created by god then you are plain wrong. Science is how people research reality.

If you have certan amount of knowledge about reality and you know how you do reasoning and how anything exists, how anything is known as designed. Then you can't believe in god, couse god isn't proved.

 

Genesis 1:1-31 talks about the creation of the world. And oh, each of us are entitled to our own opinion. If you think God doesn't exist, so be it.

 

You mean where god created day and night before the sun? It's a great bs story! You can believe what you want if you don't care about the truth. You can live in a fantacy land and think that you go to a better place when you die.

 

Ridicule is not refutation. God is the center of reality, not a ball of gas. Clearly, the Genesis description implies God used a light source that served the same function that the sun would serve, to produce 'day and night.' Since God is light, He may have used Himself as that source. Please stretch you mind a micron to accept that a process was involved, that doesn't have to follow an evolutionary sequence.

In principle, it's no different than builders putting up a scaffold first, before they build the permanent structure---we don't subsequently ask, "so you're telling me they created those all those high stories before they had the floors? Why, that's fantasy!" At least it's not the evolutionary "nature kissed a frog, and 300 million years later it turned into a prince" fairy tale Ram4nd believes in.

 

You don't understand evolution. Go read about it. It really isn't how it works. It's random gene variations and mutations that produce evolution. You can see that chineese people look different, there are black people, indians etc... Variations. If you look around, it proves evolution not god. Evolution depends on evironment and many other factors, it might even be completly random I don't know the details I am not a scientist. But you can't say that with 300 million years frogs turn to humans, like all frogs want to do nothing else but turn into humans. I am really suggesting you to read up on evolution and not from creationist sources that alter the information. All your missconseptions will be turned

You are a fan of "Special Pleading fallacy" where you say that god did it, but god was always there.

 

To make this clear once and for all.

 

You are a fan of mis-describing other people's views and then attacking the strawman caricatures of them you created. The frog prince analogy derisively oversimplified the evolution view, IN RESPONSE to your derisive oversimplication of the creation view. It's you who didn't understand the point. I submitted 5 articles to you on the difficulties with evolution, 4 of which were not written by creationists. It is you who won't revise your misconceptions.

As for variations, random variations don't produce consistent results (more overall complexity over time), the results should be, at best, no net change in complexity over time. And arguing for similarities or differences as proof of evolution is pointless unless you refute an alternative accounting for the similarities or differences. E.g., the genomes of human distant cousins often differ by a factor of 2%, which renders minor 2% DNA differences between humans and apes meaningless as an indicator as to whether they evolved. And more importantly, the differences in most cases are far deeper than the similarities, which points to unique creation of different basic types of life. If you see houses of a similar design in a neighborhood, does that indicate they evolved into each other, or that they had a common builder or designer?

This is another example of evolutionist "proof" that goes "poof" upon one drop of critical scrutiny. If you're going to interpret the data, you should do it from at least two angles, to sort out which one fits better. Evolutionists here seem to cite some data, proceed to slap an incomplete, one-sided explanation on it, then declare "that's it, Science hath spoken" and expect everyone to fall in line. This is really why they don't want the public aware of creation arguments---they don't want people to see the creation and evolution approaches critically compared based on their merits, because they realize the evolution position would be found wanting.

 

You say that similar dna makes you think of a same designer. Well then you don't know how we recognise design, go google it.

I will quit argueing with you, can't argue with a mind like yours. Science doesn't relye on authoroties. There are no scientific authoroties. Science studies the reality and physics is not currently enironmental science.

Explain to me your point of view. If god would exist and he would give a crap about what humans do, and not what animals do. Then why is there 100 billion galaxies out there. And why would you think that we are the only ones out there?

 

Science is Gods creation. But God may not be like as explained in all religious books.
It's imagination of people.
Nature is God.

 

Can you get us a link to a fossil that Darwin did believed and boast over it? Oh one question, does dead matter like a chunk of rock for instance or a planet has its own installed gravity? it somehow or accidentally got installed with gravity field or it installed by self?? And even if they did, how can they did not crashed each other? they calculated? oh of course, by somehow or accident it has a calculating device and it calculates. wth dude??!

Don't be in denial, man