User: Mod

"Scientists try to create answers about the creation of the universe with too little information."

They come with the theories based on what evidence they have. It would be nice to have more evidence, which is why they are constantly seeking it, and updating the theories as necessary. There is also the problem of the very difficult maths behind it all.

"Religion is based on faith and science is not,"

Correct.

"so they cannot be compared"

correct.

" and you cannot say that science does what religion does also"

Correct.

"Can you accually prove the Holy Bible wrong? "

Since it is difficult to prove a negative...for example can you prove that there isn't an invisible intangible ape who loves marbles living in all fridges?

"You can, on the other hand, prove many of the scientific creationism theries incorrect."

The reason being, is that theories have conditions in them which enable others to falsify them. Which is why the scientific model is strong. IT will also make predictions, so if those predictions do not come about, you know that the theory is lacking.

"do you yourself believe that humans came about by coincidence, such as science makes it seem?"

Coincidence? Coinciding with what?

"NOTHING as amazing as earth and mankind could come from plain matter without a creator putting every particle into place. It is utterly IMPOSSIBLE."

Based on what? Every particle would not have to be put in place by a someone. A sequence of events led to where we now find ourselves. What is so amazing about that? You have absolutely no basis on which to say it is impossible, since you do not know what is possible and what is not.

"Read the Bible" Done it, several times.

"stop this petty arguing." Welcome to the internet.

"HAVE FAITH." Have faith in Allah (pbuh) my friend.

Yes, you must have faith to understand such things. Just like you must have an education to understand that a theory isn't just a made up thing used to explain that which we can't understand.

There are two definitions of theory. You are interchanging them, to set up a straw man.

Scientists take all the evidence that is available, and see what information that provides. They then formulate reasons why the evidence exists. They then test their theory. They say, if my theory is right, this should happen. If my theory is wrong, this won't work...

So, they don't just make it up. They look at in depth evidence...and are willing to change their theory if new evidence arrives that challenges it.

However, religion just makes it up, based on no evidence but the anecdotal. I'm not saying this is wrong, but I do think it absurd that one could say that its ok for the religious to do one thing, and not ok for scientists to do a simaler thing, but with more grounds for doing it.

I'm afraid Dude6, your argument is invalid. Try again.

"One law of science says you can not create or destroy matter and matter cannot creat itself."

That law only works under normal circumstances.

"One law of science says all matter has a beginning. "

Which law is that?

"This is my question. How did matter come into existence? To this day I have found no one to answer my question."

That is because there is no answer. During Plank time the laws of physics that we know now do not apply. Much in the same way that those laws don't work too well on the quantum level (which is the Plank time universe in a nutshell (or better yet, in a singularity)).

Particle/anti-particle pairs are constantly coming into and then out of existence http://www.eps.org/aps/meet/APR01/baps/abs/S1500054.html

Getting a complete answer to your question would require a decade of studying physics. Which is probably why you haven't recieved one yet.

Once upon a time, way back in the infinitesimal First fraction of a second attending our creation, A tiny drop containing all of it, all energy And all its guises, burst upon the scene, Exploding out of nothing into everything Virtually instantaneously, the way our thoughts Leap eagerly to occupy the abhorrent void. Once, say ten or twenty billion years ago, In Planck time, in no time at all, the veil Available to our perceptions was flung out Over space at such a rate the mere imagination Cannot keep up, so rapidly the speed of light Lags miraculously behind, producing a series Of incongruities that has led our curiosity, Like Ariadne's thread, through the dim labyrinth Of our conclusions to the place of our beginning. In Planck time, everything that is was spread so thin That all distance is enormous, between each star, Between subatomic particles, so that we are composed Almost entirely of emptiness, so that what separates This world, bright ball floating in its midnight blue, From the irrefutable logic of no world at all Has no more substance than the traveler's dream, So that nothing can be said for certain except That sometime, call it Planck time, it will all just Disappear, a parlor trick, a rabbit in its hat, Will all go up in a flash of light, abracadabra, An idea that isn't being had anymore. -George Bradley

-Creationists can not prove their God -Evolutionists can't prove their theory

True. Just for fun though, I'm going to say that there is actual evidence for evolution. It might not be possible to prove it...but there is evidence for it. And, if and when new evidence comes along, people's theories will shift.

Evolution HAS been observed.

"When I look at a building, how do I know there was builder? I can't see him, hear him, touch, taste, or smell him. Of course, the building is proof that there was a builder. In fact, I couldn't want better evidence there was a builder than to have a builder right in front of me. I don't need "faith" to know there was a builder. All I need is eyes that can see and a brain that works."

Objection. I can look up who built the building using records. I can then find the group of people that built it and talk to them. Smell them etc.

The fact that a building is there means that somebody must have built it. Because buildings, as we know are built by builders. How? Becauae we have experienced a building being built ourselves. Somebody told us, we witnessed a few of them go up, seen it on TV. We have evidence that buildings are built by man. However the existance of a universe does not mean somebody must have built it. We do not know where the universe came from, so we have no prior experience with other universes and how they were built. We do not know if it was a God that built the universe or if it is a natural phenomenon.

"The same principle of building/builder, painting/painter applies with the existence of God. Nothing in this earth that was 'made' has no maker."

True. But this makes the assumption that the universe was made by somebody/something. Since it is this assumption that is the centre of the debate the argument does not hold.

"When I look at creation, how can I know there was a creator? I can't see Him, hear Him, taste Him, or smell him. How can I know that He exists? Why, creation proves, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that there is a creator. "

That assumes that the universe is a creation, and not just an accidental interaction of particles or whatever. Once again, all you have done is taken the argument past the first objection, assumed it to be true, and gone from there. If your assumptions are true, then you are right. However, since the fundamental difference in opinion pivots on this assumption and proving it, your argument is useless.

"You cannot have a 'creation' without a creator Webster's dictionary defines 'creation' as "the act of creating; especially the act of bringing the world into ordered existence." I couldn't want better scientific proof that a creator exists than to have creation in front of me. I don't need "faith" to believe in a Creator--All I need is eyes that can see and a brain that works. "

As above. If I was to simply say "prove that the universe was created". And you say "Because creations are created so there must have been a creator, and since there was a creator, he must have created creation", that would be a circular argument.