: Why couldn't a God or gods create the earth to operate in this way. Some say that evalution, if used by the creator God, would demonstrate a greater mind than the constant static ecosystem that many christians beleive in. I can see the logic in that.
:Besides this, there is a field of science called creationisim, in which scientific evidence is collected in order to explain HOW creation took place.
Creationism is hardly a science, Ryan. It's true that some creationists apply some scientific techniques, but their "findings" are extremely selective. Most creationist literature (and I've read a lot of it) ignores any evidence that does not support a literal, six-day, recent creation. Since, in fact, there is almost no evidence to support this (mis)interpretation of Genesis, creationists usually rely on convoluted arguments, false assumptions, and often downright falsehood to advance their points. Unlike a real science, creationists explicitly reject findings that contradict their pre-conceived notions, and many creationist organizations demand orthodoxy from their members, in the form of a "sacred creed" or statement of beliefs that all members must follow. Real sciences don't demand orthodoxy from their practicioners, and in fact real sciences grow and develop best when practicioners challenge the basic assumptions of the field.
:I do not beleive in a good that would fake anything.
Well that's good. Gods, at least those worthy of worship, don't go around lying to their creations, do they? So the fact that the world looks old, and that every test we have devised to demonstrate the age of the earth tells us it's old can be taken as evidence that it really is old, and not just God trying to trick us.
However, as I implied in my previous post, if God has the characteristics most believers attribute to him, then he is quite capable of making a universe that looks old, but in fact is not. If, as most creationists claim, the universe is actually very young, then it is reasonable to assume that God created it with the appearance of great age for some inscrutable reason. Any universe that can not be distinguished from one of great age must logically be treated as though it actually was old. If God created it fifteen minutes ago, with all of us full of created memories of a non-existant past, we must still behave as though that past was real, or we face an existential dilemma, the result of which is the impossibility of justifying any action at all, and a collapse into complete nihilism.
Even a very devout believer in Judaism, Christianity, or Islam must accept that God made the universe with the appearance of great age. It is therefore God's will that we think of the universe as very old, and so creationism is, in some sense, undermining a faith in God, IMHO.
:(SNIP)Furthermore, I am very unique in that I am a Christian and I beleive in the Big Bang. There is evidence for it, just like there is evidenve for the electron.
Actually, you'd be surprised how common that is. All intellegent people accept the findings of science where they are applicable, regardless of their religion. Most Christians accept the reality of the Big Bang, as well as the reality of evolution, geological processes, physics, chemistry, and so on. It is only a tiny minority of very vocal "fundamentalist" Christians who have a problem with the sciences. Normal, well adjusted people, regardless of religion, accept science as valid. Science, after all, works. Airplanes fly because of the engineering skills of their designers and builders, not because of the faith of the passengers, for example.
: One thing we have to disscus is the validity of the Geological Column. I will post on this when I do some more resarch on the subject.
Definitely check out what Talkorigins has to say on the subject before deciding what you think.
: I made the disinction between atheisim and agnostisism in the responce I wrote to Lark, where I said that Atheisim was a beleife that God does not exist and that agnostisism is the teory that God does not exist pending new evidence.
Not exactly. Good partial definition of atheism, but agnosticism is different than you describe. Agnosticism is simply the recognition that there is no way to decide whether or not god exists, given the currently available evidence. It is not "atheism-lite" as some describe it. Agnostics don't claim that god doesn't exist, pending further evidence, they claim that we can't logically decide for or against. By analogy; when you flip a coin, is it "heads" or "tails" while it is still spinning in the air, or only after it lands? Atheists say it's tails, religions claim it's heads, and agnostics say the coin is still in the air.
:Thoes who beleive or postulate that there is no God have nothing to prove.
Again, I disagree. I see your point, but I disagree. What you're trying to say, and correct me if I'm wrong, please, is that in order to prove something is not in a place, one must search the entire place. In this case, atheists would need to be able to simultaneously view every point in the universe in order to "find" an absence of God. The devout, on the other hand, would have a much easier time, in that they would not have to search the entire universe, but can stop looking as soon as they find God.
That's a reasonable point, but I still argue that the rules of evidence that apply in scientific persuits do not apply to religion. Lark has no need to demonstrate to me that God exists, nor do you. Faith, by definition, does not rely on scientific principles, so the rules of evidence are irrelevant. If "just believing" is good enough for you, fine. I take it that you consider yourself religious, so clearly "just believing" is indeed enough, and proof is unnecessary.
:But my original post was more about how I am the one who must prove anything. Since I DO beleive I am reponsible to prove God's existance. And furthermore, when some one tells me they do not beleive in God I have no right to ask them to prove it.
It's true that you have no right to demand proof of non-existance from an atheist, but the atheist has no right to demand proof of existance from you either. As I've said, the rules of evidence are not an appropriate approach to questions of faith.
Let me put it this way; If I asked you for proof of God's existence, and you couldn't provide that proof, would you stop believing? Probably not, so what was the point of trying in the first place? If you're going to reject your own findings, then there is no reason for testing the proposition in the first place. This, by the way, is at the core of why creationism is not a science.
I hope I was a bit more clear this time.
-Floyd
