Chromosomes support Creation?

Originally posted by @dj2becker
I am saying the exitence of God does not contradict science...

Then it is easy for you to prove his existence scientifically.
Let's take it from there.

Originally posted by @fabianfnas
Then it is easy for you to prove his existence scientifically.
Let's take it from there.

Hold on, are you saying it's impossible for a scientist to also be a theist?

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Hold on, are you saying it's impossible for a scientist to also be a theist?

No, where did I say that?

Originally posted by @josephw
Do you have children?

How would you feel if one of them belonged to a cult that brainwashed him or her into believing that you didn't exist?

Or better yet, your wife fell in love with another?

Corporately the human race is the offspring of God. In that sense we are God's children. In the Old Testament Israel was metaphorically referred to as a wife ...[text shortened]... usy means in the Bible? Or will you continue to exhibit immature intelligence by further debate?

You mean whata bible apologists THINK is going on with a jealous god? It couldn't POSSIBLY have just been written by men with no help from a god? It is just so coincidental that jealous just happens to be a human emotion and we are to believe a god, capable of making somehow an entire universe with a wave of its rhetorical hand would somehow be capable of JEALOUSY? Come on, how corny is that?

Originally posted by @fabianfnas
No, where did I say that?

So you agree then that science and religion are compatible to theists?

Originally posted by @dj2becker
So you agree then that science and religion are compatible to theists?

Whoever said those two concepts were NOT compatible to theists? You have the extremists, the literalists and so forth, Earth is 6113 years 4 months 5 days and 3 hours old PERIOD and there is no middle ground there. "what about 10,000 years old, is that possible?" NO, it is 6113 years old. Funny part about that is, that number was never mentioned in the bible and you have to further believe the Joanny begat Roger who begat Ezikiel who begat Abraham and so forth, as if that chronology was written in stone and 100% accurate. Sure. It could happen🙂

But then there is the more moderate theistic view that well, we accept the universe is 14 odd billion years old and Earth is about 4 billion years old and such and we believe our god still made the universe, just not in the same time frame as the bible, maybe the 7 days were 2 billion years per day, that would cover the time frame science thinks the universe has aged. It is also for sure a LOT bigger than what we see with telescopes because the expansion is going on faster than the speed of light because space does not have that speed limit of matter and so some people think it is infinitely large and some maybe 60 odd billion light years across all of it but we can't see and stuff past that 14 billion ly limit simpy because light could not reach us in that time from say 50 billion light years away, we would have to wait 36 billion years to see stars at that distance, but if we wait long enough, we may see new galaxies pop into view where they were invisible before but no in our line of direct sight, now available to view in a powerful telescope.

Originally posted by @fabianfnas
Then it is easy for you to prove his existence scientifically.
Let's take it from there.

Religion and science are not compatible within the narrow paradigm of atheism, I'll give you that much.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Religion and science are not compatible within the narrow paradigm of atheism, I'll give you that much.

Because religion is unscientific?

Originally posted by @dj2becker
So you agree then that science and religion are compatible to theists?

Science and religion cannot be mixed, that what I am saying.
Any person can be religious and scientific as he wants, as long he doesn't mix them.

Example: A christian can very well believe in evolution. But when he tries to scientifically prove evolution in terms of religious faith, he will fail. Because then he mix religion with science which is impossible.

So when you try to include god in big bang, then you will fail. Because god cannot be scientifically proven.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Religion and science are not compatible within the narrow paradigm of atheism, I'll give you that much.

You say that atheism is narrow? Really? I thought theism is narrow.

Who is right and who is wrong here? We cannot agree on this, ever. Because it cannot be studied, neither religiously nor scientifically. Heck, I don't think we even cannot agree on the definition of 'narrowness'.

So this will be a dead subject in a serious debate. Let's not go there...

Originally posted by @sonhouse
Whoever said those two concepts were NOT compatible to theists? You have the extremists, the literalists and so forth, Earth is 6113 years 4 months 5 days and 3 hours old PERIOD and there is no middle ground there. "what about 10,000 years old, is that possible?" NO, it is 6113 years old. Funny part about that is, that number was never mentioned in the bib ...[text shortened]... isible before but no in our line of direct sight, now available to view in a powerful telescope.

At what state of age was the universe at the moment of creation?


This would assume that God created the universe. How old would it appear moments after creation?

Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke
Because religion is unscientific?

Because atheism negates any possibility of the supernatural.

Originally posted by @fabianfnas
Science and religion cannot be mixed, that what I am saying.
Any person can be religious and scientific as he wants, as long he doesn't mix them.

Example: A christian can very well believe in evolution. But when he tries to scientifically prove evolution in terms of religious faith, he will fail. Because then he mix religion with science which is imp ...[text shortened]... try to include god in big bang, then you will fail. Because god cannot be scientifically proven.

Science does not disprove religion, if it did no scientist would be religious. Most of the greatest scientists of all time were religious and their science was perfectly compatible with their religion. It is only the narrow minded atheist that cannot see the compatibility because of their atheism.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Science does not disprove religion, if it did no scientist would be religious. Most of the greatest scientists of all time were religious and their science was perfectly compatible with their religion. It is only the narrow minded atheist that cannot see the compatibility because of their atheism.

Exactly, it is not the role of science to disprove religion. To try to prove or disprove the existence of god is bound to be futile.

However, if some preacher says that he has a scientific proof of the existence of god (or the Adam's bellybutton, or intelligent design), then it can scientifically be disputed by the scientific community to be false.
But if the same preacher says that his faith is that his god exists (or Adam lack bellybutton, or there is an intelligent design), then this religious faith cannot be disputed by the scientific community.

Because science shouldn't handle religious matters, and religion shouldn't handle scientific matters. Because they act in different domains and they cannot ever mix.

Yet we have amateur scientists who try to prove religious matters, as there are religious people not knowing much trying to use science to prove religious matter. Futile in either case. So if you want to use scientific reasoning, then go to science and learn about scientific methodology, not some homebrew logic that doesn't work.

If you use 'narrow minded' in your reasoning, then you should know that I can use it against religious people as well. Define the term or don't use it at all.
I don't call you 'narrow minded' because you want to mix religion with science.

Originally posted by @fabianfnas
Exactly, it is not the role of science to disprove religion. To try to prove or disprove the existence of god is bound to be futile.

However, if some preacher says that he has a scientific proof of the existence of god (or the Adam's bellybutton, or intelligent design), then it can scientifically be disputed by the scientific community to be false.
B ...[text shortened]... use it at all.
I don't call you 'narrow minded' because you want to mix religion with science.

Obviously no one can prove the existence of God using science, however there may be certain scientific discoveries that a theist will see as evidence of a creator. An atheist could obviously interpret such evidence differently since it does not align with their atheism.