How does something come of nothing? Back to my original point:



To me, this points to a Creator although the question still remains of “where did He come from?” But as I said previously, scripture tells us He is the beginning and the end. He always was, He is, and He always will be. That’s as much of an answer as we’ll ever have, I think.

Science requires some faith in the belief that a theory is correct when it can not be proven either way. This does not have to reside separately from religious faith (one can believe in both when they don’t contradict one another) but it can be the only source when one doesn’t believe in any religion. See above where another poster is saying that something must have come from nothing or else there is a continuing stream of somethings going back for eternity. That belief (something coming from nothing) requires faith because it can not be proven.

I wouldn't say that is it the same type of faith as proper science requires repeated verification to see if something can be proven or disproven.

Statistical Mechanics made me believe more in a creator and intelligent design.

The natural world at the base level is digital, binary.  Not organic or analog.

One scary thought I always have is if the universe really is a simulation, then from our perspective the admin may as well be God to us, as he can build and change anything he likes and is the only one with the power to rescue us from the program.

Science and religion should mirror each other.  Evolution lacks facts but so does religion.  People who live in glass houses should not throw stones...

@fury413rb

Ponder this. Mind the time counter

The problem these days is too many people consider science a source of truth and fact. It isnt. Belief in God and what scripture states, or not believing, are both faith propositions.

If you’re going to use that argument, gravity and atomic theory are also both just theories, yet you can see the evidence in flight, falling objects, and nuclear power/weapons. Cell theory explains cells, you can see it demonstrated constantly in biology, and evolution is also a fundamental theory of modern biology. If your focus is on massive changes over time, those can be traced through DNA, dogs are a great ready example, they evolved over time from artificial selection for traits.

Most religious organizations are able to accept evolution, (with the idea being that it’s guided by god, or maybe started by god and then is on its own).

People need to understand the basic premises of the two to evaluate how they should contribute to their understanding of their existence. They are not mutually exclusive, and do not inform each other in any significant way other than to challenge dogmatic aspects of religious beliefs.

Science is a philosophy that we can make observations of our reality to learn aspects of our existence. It has assumptions that we can make valid observations. Conclusions are made a posteriori only based on observations and experiments. Science deals only with what is observable and testable, and scientific theories present our best understanding of how particular natural phenomena work based solely on that. A requirement of any scientific theory is that each step must be understandable by humans. This approach has very significant value because it is in our realm of understanding and can therefore be used to make valid predictions. This approach lead to things like pasteurization, understanding how inheritance works, antibiotics, modern medical practices etc.. It has a huge amount of practical value. It is not "better" though. It has significant limitations. It is known that it will not explain everything and any other contention is hubris and misrepresentation. This is the stuff we get to understand. You understand it and agree, or you understand it and you don't and can explain why without referring to religion at all because that is irrelevant here. You do not have to "believe" or "not believe" if you do your diligence.

Religion is an a priori approach we use to try to grapple with the much bigger picture questions that we have about our existence. What is a soul? What happens after you die? Is there "karma"? These questions are by definition outside of the scope of science because they are inherently untestable. A miracle is defined in nearly any religion as an act that is outside of our ability to understand. Because a true act of god will never be understandable or testable, science can't show it happened, but importantly also can't show that it didn't. Likewise, because of this feature we do not have the ability to use religion for a scientific purpose, such as making a prediction. You have to take this stuff on faith because you can't understand it. If you could understand it, it would just be an alien act not one of god. These are the main things people really care about, and they are outside the scope of science entirely.

The problem comes in when people confuse these basic tenets and try to mix and match their philosophies. Creationism and Evolutionary Science are not addressing the same topic at all. One can not replace the other, and one can not refute the other. It creates logical false dilemmas because they can not inform each other. In particular with respect to where we came from, there is no direct evidence of spontaneous origin of life in the physical sense. We do know that if it happened on earth (not necessary at all) then it happened once that was meaningful and took hold. Our understanding of the natural physical requirements for how that potentially could have happened tells us exactly zero about whether it happened because of god or not.

The presence of life on earth for a very long time is as near a fact as science can produce. Also that populations and species have to change by evolutionary processes, not even counting natural selection, is tautological if you understand inheritance and basic population biology such as the Hardy - Weinberg model and its requirements. Furthermore, the only way things can stay remotely the same for long periods of time is by natural selection, because of genetic drift. Evolution is a requirement for how life works, period.

Rejecting the scientific understanding of the history of life itself because of religious beliefs is an overly dogmatic and literal interpretation of religion in my personal opinion. The same is true regarding rejecting religious beliefs (the important ones, not the little details) because of understanding evolution. But if you are locked into this either-or mindset, you may be stuck with that. The fact is that both evolution by natural selection and supernatural acts of god were not incompatible and could both be at play. There is ample evidence of genes being passed between humans and Neanderthals, and lesser that something like H. erectus also interbred with them. There is ample evidence that our closest relatives are the primates. You can rationalize it away however you want, but it's your loss.

Think about this. There is clear evidence of religious beliefs and practices among early humans. Whether they evolved from a primate or not was likely never to have been considered. It is immaterial in any important religious way.

Atheists: We have no idea what idea what happened 2000 years ago or if Jesus was real!

Also Atheists:  This is what is going to happen 13 billion trillion trillion trillion trillion years from now.

The evolution of whales is very well-documented.  I've seen the fossils myself at the British Museum of Natural History, they have a nice display.  I've also seen several other whale skeletons in which the hips and rear leg bones are obviously present.