The Energon Pub

Autobot032 wrote: As I grew older, Christianity just seemed to fit like a glove with me, but once I accepted Christ as my savior, I was then finally able to see that it was the right fit for me.

I realize it isn't for everyone, which is why I don't try and preach it.

Autobot032 wrote:I'm a Christian, and I believe that evolution exists. However, there are different forms of it, but the end result is the same.

Answers.com wrote:Evolution: A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form.

I can also see the Big Bang theory working as well. Who's to say that God couldn't have used the big bang to do the work more efficiently, and quicker on the whole?

I'm an open minded Christian for the most part. I fail to see the reason why God and Science couldn't go hand in hand. We use it, and we were made in his own image, so who's to say he never used science?

Before anyone asks "Okay, but what if Science would find some potential way to disprove God's existence? What then?" Well, Satan is the prince of lies, and he can corrupt anything in this world, up to and including the people. Science can be corrupted too.

I remember a line from "The Usual Suspects" that fits my statement: "The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he did not exist."

And it's true. The Bible says, even the Devil believes in God. (Follows? No.)

Autobot032 wrote:I'm a Christian, and I believe that evolution exists. However, there are different forms of it, but the end result is the same.

Answers.com wrote:Evolution: A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form.

The fact that everything has a pattern and can be proven through science is proof of God. God and science does go hand and hand because God creation can be proven through science. Unfortunately, it is mainly atheists who believe science disproves God but in actuality science proves the genius of design.

18th century scotsman wrote:For the design argument to be feasible, it must be true that order and purpose are observed only when they result from design. But order is observed regularly, resulting from presumably mindless processes like snowflake or crystal generation. Design accounts for only a tiny part of our experience with order and "purpose".

Furthermore, the design argument is based on an incomplete analogy: because of our experience with objects, we can recognise human-designed ones, comparing for example a pile of stones and a brick wall. But in order to point to a designed Universe, we would need to have an experience of a range of different universes. As we only experience one, the analogy cannot be applied. We must ask therefore if it is right to why we ought to compare the world to a machine — as in Paley's watchmaker argument — when perhaps it would be better described as a giant inert animal.

Even if the design argument is completely successful, it could not (in and of itself) establish a robust theism; one could easily reach the conclusion that the universe's configuration is the result of some morally ambiguous, possibly unintelligent agent or agents whose method bears only a remote similarity to human design. In this way it could be asked if the designer was God, or further still, who designed the designer?

If a well-ordered natural world requires a special designer, then God's mind (being so well-ordered) also requires a special designer. And then this designer would likewise need a designer, and so on ad infinitum. We could respond by resting content with an inexplicably self-ordered divine mind but then why not rest content with an inexplicably self-ordered natural world?

Often, what appears to be purpose, where it looks like object X has feature F in order to secure some outcome O, is better explained by a filtering process: that is, object X wouldn't be around did it not possess feature F, and outcome O is only interesting to us as a human projection of goals onto nature. This mechanical explanation of teleology anticipated natural selection. (see also Anthropic principle)

The design argument does not explain pain, suffering, and natural disasters

Devastator wrote:I was raised catholic and at CCD (sunday school to everyone else) we were taught it was okay to believe in evolution. "As long as you believe God created your soul then it's okay to believe in evolution." I know there are plenty of people that disagree with that. What I'm amazed at is how progressive my sunday schooling was back in the 80s with a topic that's still a heated debate today.

Professor Smooth wrote:

Devastator wrote:I was raised catholic and at CCD (sunday school to everyone else) we were taught it was okay to believe in evolution. "As long as you believe God created your soul then it's okay to believe in evolution." I know there are plenty of people that disagree with that. What I'm amazed at is how progressive my sunday schooling was back in the 80s with a topic that's still a heated debate today.

Wow. Science explains everything but the existence of the soul. God created the soul.

I like it!

The Chaos Bringer wrote:
But what is a soul?