Ignostic regarding evolution.

[Wiccan_Child]

The supernatural is (at least) a subset of the non-natural.

Aren't you just renaming the supernatural as the 'non-natural'? What is the non-natural? If it's "That which isn't natural", well, what's 'natural'?

If that was your definition previously, then, no, it's no sufficient - it begs the question .

What if your theory is that plate tectonics is caused by smurfs meddling in the Earth's core, and that whale music simply enhances the placebo effect?

Then the latter, which uses wholly natural entities, is inherently more credible than the former, which uses wholly supernatural (and, tellingly, fictional) entities, by the sheer fact that the latter is a natural explanation.

Ok. Ty.

Hah, I didn't expect that to work

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Aren't you just renaming the supernatural as the 'non-natural'? What is the non-natural? If it's "That which isn't natural", well, what's 'natural'?

If that was your definition previously, then, no, it's no sufficient - it begs the question .

For a definition of the natural take "that which is studied by the sciences, including mathematics, or belongs to the normally perceptible universe or the atheistic mind, for example the stars and heavens, or which can be studied by scientific instruments e.g., atoms". Note that a natural phenomena (the visible world) can have a supernatural cause (counterfactual dependence upon God the creator) or be affected by His will (e.g. calming the storm) whilst prima facie only the natural exists. Whilst the eyes of the head may normally only see the natural, the eyes of the soul may sense the divine hand at work (although this sense is not objectifiable by means of gross physical instrumentation), a "ghost in the machine" as it were (note, I deliberately picked a metaphor which would appeal to you).

Then the latter, which uses wholly natural entities, is inherently more credible than the former, which uses wholly supernatural (and, tellingly, fictional) entities, by the sheer fact that the latter is a natural explanation.

Inherently?

And what is supernatural about a smurf, I thought that they were made of plasticine?

Hah, I didn't expect that to work

Is that ( "concrete definition") a proper/official linguistic term or just something you have made up? We are not talking a trip throughMeinong's garden, are we.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

For a definition of the natural take "that which is studied by the sciences, including mathematics, or belongs to the normally perceptible universe or the atheistic mind, for example the stars and heavens, or which can be studied by scientific instruments e.g., atoms".

Then I submit that everything is either natural, or irrelevant.

For example: God, if he exists, can be subjected to scientific scrutiny. If he sets a bush on fire, how hot does it burn? Does it emit a particular EM or thermal signature, or is it just incandescent foliage for aesthetic's sake? If he heals the sick, how, exactly? Prolonged regeneration of severed tissues, or instantaneous creation of said? If he created the universe, we can deduce facets of him from the creation he left behind - even a trickster deity hiding his presence can be sussed out.

1) In general, per your definition, if something can be studied scientifically, then it is natural.
2) Anything which can influence us at least indirectly - no matter how long the causal chain - can be, in principle, subject to scientific scrutiny.
3) Thus, anything of relevance (and a great deal of irrelevance) can be subject to scientific scrutiny.
4) Thus, everything of relevance is natural.
5) Thus, everything supernatural is irrelevant.

QED.

I love logic

Note that a natural phenomena (the visible world) can have a supernatural cause (counterfactual dependence upon God the creator) or be affected by His will (e.g. calming the storm) whilst prima facie only the natural exists. Whilst the eyes of the head may normally only see the natural, the eyes of the soul may sense the divine hand at work (although this sense is not objectifiable by means of gross physical instrumentation), a "ghost in the machine" as it were (note, I deliberately picked a metaphor which would appeal to you).

You're most kind

Inherently?

C'est oui, inherently, by virtue of the fact that it no avowed supernatural entity (ghosts, gods, goblins, etc) are known to exist, while natural entities are known to exist. Thus, supernatural explanations automatically fall foul of Occam's Razor.

Not that natural explanations can't violate Occam's Razor, of course, but supernatural explanations automatically do, since they must posit something hitherto unknown.

And what is supernatural about a smurf, I thought that they were made of plasticine?

Papa Smurf indulged in magic. Is magic not supernatural?

Is that ( "concrete definition") a proper/official linguistic term or just something you have made up? We are not talking a trip throughMeinong's garden, are we.

It was off the top of my head, yeah. If you're willing to accept it, awesome, that saves a lot of semantic meandering

 

[GrowingSmaller]

I feel the same way: "This should be fun!!!"

Then I submit that everything is either natural, or irrelevant.

Sorry I do not produce custom stickers. Is that what you wanted, sir?

For example: God, if he exists, can be subjected to scientific scrutiny.

Is that the case, sir? Would you say that about superstings too?

If he sets a bush on fire, how hot does it burn?

Obviously.

Does it emit a particular EM or thermal signature, or is it just incandescent foliage for aesthetic's sake?

Mmmm thermal sigs, can you suggest one?

If he heals the sick, how, exactly?

If it's possible to know the mechanism, only then can we possibly know the mechanism. That is if the mechistic model applies, but it does not necssaril apply. "What is enlightenment?" asked Kant, maybe that could be used as part of a 'thermal' signature. Actually I think what I am trying to enlighten yopu by saying is that "there is no knowable mechanism, but it still happened" could apply. What about radiotherapy, what is the mechanism that causes the randomness of the release of ionising radiation (that is if I have it right and said radiation release is randomised)?

Prolonged regeneration of severed tissues, or instantaneous creation of said?

You ought to go into writing, captain.

If he created the universe, we can deduce facets of him from the creation he left behind - even a trickster deity hiding his presence can be sussed out.

Cosmic fingerprints, possibly, but not necessarily. He could have been wearing gloves.

1) In general, per your definition, if something can be studied scientifically, then it is natural.

You make me feel that I might regret that.

2) Anything which can influence us at least indirectly - no matter how long the causal chain - can be, in principle, subject to scientific scrutiny.

Yippee I was wrong (I don't regret it yet). Prove it (your claim not mine, it that is possible)! For example we are living in an infinite cyclic universe...a flea hopped onto a cat 100 squillion megaverses ago, what are the effects of that whereby we can trace it's cause back to the flea? I say "there is nothing without an effect, even a flea's hop."

3) Thus, anything of relevance (and a great deal of irrelevance) can be subject to scientific scrutiny.

Hold on a minute, and reread the last comment.

4) Thus, everything of relevance is natural.
5) Thus, everything supernatural is irrelevant.

I think I'm ok in skipping the grand finale. Orchestra, trumpets included, you have my permission to leave.

QED.

I love logic

Oooh you heartelss fiend.

You're most kind

I think that comment beongs elsewhere, where it was much less witty and amusing than I have made it seem. Still good try.

C'est oui, inherently, by virtue of the fact that it no avowed supernatural entity (ghosts, gods, goblins, etc) are known to exist, while natural entities are known to exist.

Not known by you. Is this Neoprotagoreanism "Wiccan Child is the measure of all things!!!".

Thus, supernatural explanations automatically fall foul of Occam's Razor.

I am sure this is a violent conspiracy. Are you in with the French?

Not that natural explanations can't violate Occam's Razor, of course, but supernatural explanations automatically do, since they must posit something hitherto unknown.

Again, that would be a hasty generalisation. cf Neoprotagoreanism.

Papa Smurf indulged in magic.

OOps don't remember that bit. Citation please.

Is magic not supernatural?

What about uncaused randomness, is that not unlawful, untracable, unscientific, unknowable, unnatural...?

It was off the top of my head, yeah. If you're willing to accept it, awesome, that saves a lot of semantic meandering

Thats fine. Much better than scraps from the barber, I humbly admit!

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I feel the same way: "This should be fun!!!"

Sorry I do not produce custom stickers. Is that what you wanted, sir?

It has a nice ring to it, don't you think?

Is that the case, sir? Would you say that about superstings too?

Indeed. At the very least, if superstrings exist, then all matter is ultimately just superstrings. So my table is a collection of superstrings.

Obviously.

Mmmm thermal sigs, can you suggest one?

That one. It's of a computer chip, apparently.

If it's possible to know the mechanism, only then can we possibly know the mechanism. That is if the mechistic model applies, but it does not necssaril apply. "What is enlightenment?" asked Kant, maybe that could be used as part of a 'thermal' signature. Actually I think what I am trying to enlighten yopu by saying is that "there is no knowable mechanism, but it still happened" could apply. What about radiotherapy, what is the mechanism that causes the randomness of the release of ionising radiation (that is if I have it right and said radiation release is randomised)?

The mechanism is known, though: quantum mechanics is our explanation of how it works. That's why I followed up my 'how does God heal' question with the kind of answers I was looking for: what physically happens in the body? Healing the blind is all very well and good, and makes for some lovely poetry, but what, precisely, is going on? Do severed optical nerves simply pop magically back into position, or do they snake through the ocular cavity and knit themselves back together? What happens to the cells? Does infection simply vanish, or do the parasites disintegrate, or do they move en masse out of the body through some convenient pore?

The point is that they have to do something. Ipso facto, we can scientifically study this mechanism, whatever it may be. Since it's direct divine intervention, we can thus study God.

You ought to go into writing, captain.

Who says I'm not

Cosmic fingerprints, possibly, but not necessarily. He could have been wearing gloves.

If God created a universe that looks exactly like a universe that developed without a special creation, God is deliberately hiding himself. If God doesn't want to be found, who am I to go rooting him out?

You make me feel that I might regret that.

Yippee I was wrong (I don't regret it yet). Prove it (your claim not mine, it that is possible)! For example we are living in an infinite cyclic universe...a flea hopped onto a cat 100 squillion megaverses ago, what are the effects of that whereby we can trace it's cause back to the flea? I say "there is nothing without an effect, even a flea's hop."

Elementary chaos theory, dear Watson. I never said it was practical to deduce that the flea hopped onto the cat 100 squillion megaverses ago, just that, in principle, we could.
The flea jumped on the cat, ultimately killing the cat through infection. The cat would have bore life-saving super-cats in the far future, eventually saving a race that would, one day, end the cycle of universal collapse - our own existence is contingent on that flea. Without that flea, the old universe would never have collapsed and our universe would never have formed.
Moreover, does the flea become supernatural simply because it lived a long time ago? Doesn't that stretch the definition to meaninglessness?

On a more serious note, the existence of neutrinos is known through a rather roundabout route. They're so weakly interacting that we need colossal vats of heavy water and banks of photomultipliers to see the single photon given off when one neutrino in a billion billion glances off a water molecule.
By all rights, neutrinos are more ethereal and non-interacting than ghosts. Yet, no one claims that neutrinos are genuinely supernatural entities.

Not known by you. Is this Neoprotagoreanism "Wiccan Child is the measure of all things!!!".

Similar, but not quite. Supernatural entities are not known by the human extelligence. But by all means, prove me wrong

I am sure this is a violent conspiracy. Are you in with the French?

What a vile accusation to level before an Englishman!

OOps don't remember that bit. Citation please.

Episode 67, I believe.

What about uncaused randomness, is that not unlawful, untracable, unscientific, unknowable, unnatural...?

No, because we do know about it It obeys mathematical laws, which are testable and exploitable. STM allow us to view atoms, and they work solely on the principle that particles can spontaneously, randomly, appear where they shouldn't.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

I accept that is God affects the physical at a degree we can investigate, then his actions are investigable, but we would not be looking at God himself.

Also I still have major issues with this:

Anything which can influence us at least indirectly - no matter how long the causal chain - can be, in principle, subject to scientific scrutiny.

You seem to think that we might have a theory of everything whereby we can make finite observations and then deduce ad infinitum the prior conditions which lead to the observed event.
Whilst in principle this might be the case if we have a fantasy model of science, I think in the real world our ability to rertodict is always going to be severly limited. Do you honestly think, for example, a scientist could tell me how many steps I have taken in my lifetime, never mind describe the wave function of a quantum fluctuation on the other side of the universe 8 billion years ago? Isn't there a principle that states "an exact model of the universe will have to be at least as complex as the universe itself"?

Supernatural entities are not known by the human extelligence. But by all means, prove me wrong

If angels exist, and they are supernatural, and people see angels, then do they not potentially know of ghosts. For example I have met Chrissie Astell, whose video testimony can be found at youtubeI have had a similar experience. Could we not have seen (and therefore know of) angels? Are you sure you can answer "no" without any rational hesitation whatsoever?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I accept that is God affects the physical at a degree we can investigate, then his actions are investigable, but we would not be looking at God himself.

I consider it to be similar to forensic psychology: you can learn a lot about someone by just looking at their actions.

Also I still have major issues with this:
You seem to think that we might have a theory of everything whereby we can make finite observations and then deduce ad infinitum the prior conditions which lead to the observed event.

In principle, yes. Though I said in my previous post that it isn't necessarily always practical, I also gave the example of the rather indirect way in which we 'see' neutrinos.

Whilst in principle this might be the case if we have a fantasy model of science, I think in the real world our ability to rertodict is always going to be severly limited. Do you honestly think, for example, a scientist could tell me how many steps I have taken in my lifetime, never mind describe the wave function of a quantum fluctuation on the other side of the universe 8 billion years ago?

48,699,421,807 steps. Give or take.

Isn't there a principle that states "an exact model of the universe will have to be at least as complex as the universe itself"?

Meh, I've never bought into that

If angels exist, and they are supernatural, and people see angels, then do they not potentially know of ghosts. For example I have met Chrissie Astell, whose video testimony can be found at youtubeI have had a similar experience. Could we not have seen (and therefore know of) angels? Are you sure you can answer "no" without any rational hesitation whatsoever?

It's entirely possible, and I certainly don't doubt the sincerity of the people who tell these stories. But can you honestly say that no one's ever lied, or been mistaken? Think of all the times statues of the Virgin Mary weep blood, only for the blood to turn out to be that of the local bishop.

Penn and Teller did a show on such unusual depictions of religious figures on their show Bullsh!t; you can find it on YouTube, though since it contains swearing I won't like it here. But the brain is a fantastically efficient pattern-recognising machine: we see meaning and relevance where there really isn't any.

So. When you say you've heard testimony of people who claim to have seen angels, it's so very much more likely that they're mistaken. They could be completely true, but the odds really aren't in their favour.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Ok... you reckon science or the scientist can be onniscient?

So. When you say you've heard testimony of people who claim to have seen angels, it's so very much more likely that they're mistaken. They could be completely true, but the odds really aren't in their favour.

So that makes genuine knowledge completely, totally, undeniably impossible does it?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Ok... you reckon science or the scientist can be onniscient?

No.

So that makes genuine knowledge completely, totally, undeniably impossible does it?

Correct, but not for the reasons I stated. With regards to angels, there's simply no good evidence for their existence other than hazy third-party eye-witness accounts. Now atoms, they have a good, solid basis in reality.

Genuine knowledge is impossible because there is always uncertainty. No matter how much evidence we accrue, we will never prove a given proposition. All we can do is increase our certainty; evolution is almost certainly true, but, then again, it's possible (if not plausible) that there's a giant conspiracy.
The one caveat is the world of pure logic and mathematics, where true knowledge does exist.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

No.

Soif there are things which science cannot know, then it would seem likely that it will not be able to trace every cause which lead to a specific event (which seemed to be your claim).

Correct, but not for the reasons I stated. With regards to angels, there's simply no good evidence for their existence other than hazy third-party eye-witness accounts. Now atoms, they have a good, solid basis in reality.

Wrong. there are first person "witness" experiences. Thet might be third party for you, but not necessarily for others.

Genuine knowledge is impossible because there is always uncertainty.

You have a right to define "genuine knowledge" how you like, and this is of course a philosophy forum, but i don't think that the everyday usage of the term knowledge involves concepts of absolute certainty etc.

No matter how much evidence we accrue, we will never prove a given proposition.

I am not sure if the type of proorf you have in mind is necessary for application of the term "knowledge".

All we can do is increase our certainty; evolution is almost certainly true, but, then again, it's possible (if not plausible) that there's a giant conspiracy.

The possibility of skeptical alternatives for me does not invalidate knowledge claims. Maybe that was the case for Descartes, but I think that its quite possible that he set the bar way too high. For instance you're surely not going to deny that you actually know your left hand from your right are you? Or affirm that you have a physics degree, but believe know nothing about the physical world?

The one caveat is the world of pure logic and mathematics, where true knowledge does exist.

"True knowledge". A strange term indeed. Now, how do you know you have true knowledge in the realms of maths and logic, if that realisation is not the result of a mathematical or logical calculation?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Soif there are things which science cannot know, then it would seem likely that it will not be able to trace every cause which lead to a specific event (which seemed to be your claim).

My claim was that such a causal link allows something very distant to be scientifically scrutinised. That doesn't mean there are things science can't know (though, obviously, we have no idea if there are or not)
If nothing else, it can't become omniscient because that involves a) absolute knowledge (which science can't provide), and b) infinite time in which to accrue all knowledge.

Wrong. there are first person "witness" experiences. Thet might be third party for you, but not necessarily for others.

Nonetheless, those accounts, as given, are still hazy and untrustworthy, even to the individual who saw them. The problem is that, by acknowledging this doubt, the eye-witness feels like they're 'betraying' the entity in question.
If you had an eye-witness who had just had a 'strong feeling of being watched and protected', and concluded that it was a guardian angel, this story is no more compelling to the person telling it than the person hearing it: rationally, it's such a nebulous, subjective, and emotionally biased event that the person who experienced it cannot be sure what happened.

In other words, given the descriptions of angelic encounters people have told, there doesn't seem to be any real reason to believe that they were genuine angels even if I had had the experience myself.

You have a right to define "genuine knowledge" how you like, and this is of course a philosophy forum, but i don't think that the everyday usage of the term knowledge involves concepts of absolute certainty etc.

I am not sure if the type of proorf you have in mind is necessary for application of the term "knowledge".

I disagree: like you said, this is a philosophy forum. If there's any place to use technical terminology, it's here. Science provides proof beyond all reasonable doubt, but not beyond all doubt - that's why its facts and theories are qualified by the term scientific facts and scientific theories. It doesn't actually prove, in the truest sense of the word, any given claim.

So when I say genuine knowledge is impossible, I'm using the strict definition of the term (as implied by the word 'genuine'). It's certainly not colloquial, but, again, this is a philosophy forum.

The possibility of skeptical alternatives for me does not invalidate knowledge claims. Maybe that was the case for Descartes, but I think that its quite possible that he set the bar way too high. For instance you're surely not going to deny that you actually know your left hand from your right are you? Or affirm that you have a physics degree, but believe know nothing about the physical world?

I do indeed. To use the trite but true example, how do you know you're not a brain in a vat?

"True knowledge". A strange term indeed. Now, how do you know you have true knowledge in the realms of maths and logic, if that realisation is not the result of a mathematical or logical calculation?

Because the truth of one statement implies the truth of others ("A=A" and "A=/=¬A" implies "either A or ¬A", for instance).

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Ok, with standards that exacting you are hardly going to claim knowledge of anything, even the nose on your face, or the fact that you have posted in this thread, never mind the possibility of angeic encounters. All I can think of saying right now it that might be a philosophy you confess, but your everyday actions ought to betray your "true" or instinctive beliefs about what you know and don't know. For instance, if someone asks if you are left or right handed, you don't (I expect you don't anyway) shrug your shoulders and reply "I honestly can't say."

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Ok, with standards that exacting you are hardly going to claim knowledge of anything, even the nose on your face, or the fact that you have posted in this thread, never mind the possibility of angeic encounters. All I can think of saying right now it that might be a philosophy you confess, but your everyday actions ought to betray your "true" or instinctive beliefs about what you know and don't know. For instance, if someone asks if you are left or right handed, you don't (I expect you don't anyway) shrug your shoulders and reply "I honestly can't say."

That's because I believe that I'm right-handed; the inherent epistemological uncertainty is so small as to be negligible. In essence, it's a scientific fact that I'm right-handed, so that's what I'd say if asked, but, I acknowledge that, technically, I cannot know with 100% certainty (unless I make special definitions).

"Can't know to 100% certainty" doesn't mean "Can't know to any certainty". We can never completely prove evolution beyond all doubt, but that doesn't we can't prove it beyond all reasonable doubt.

The problem with angelic encounters is that there's no way to demonstrate they're actually really involving angels, even for the people who experience them.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Ok but are you quite sure that the only 'true knowledge' is 100% certain knowledge? That would leave science being a form of "false knowledge" wouldn't it, which seems to be a strange way of talking about knowledge. Why not, instead of true and false knowledge, don't you stick to the convention of talking about various degrees of certainty.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Ok but are you quite sure that the only 'true knowledge' is 100% certain knowledge? That would leave science being a form of "false knowledge" wouldn't it, which seems to be a strange way of talking about knowledge. Why not, instead of true and false knowledge, don't you stick to the convention of talking about various degrees of certainty.

For the same reason we talk about 'true leaves' and 'false leaves', 'true hair' and 'false hair' - we are being strictly, technically, correct. Ordinarily we don't need to make such distinctions, but in some discussions, we do (for instance, if talking to a Creationist about why both mammals and bees have 'hair', I'd point out that distinction; otherwise, I'd just call it unqualified 'hair').

Since we're talking about the epistemological limits of science and human inquiry, the distinction between 'true' knowledge (i.e., something you really do know), and 'false' knowledge (i.e., something you don't actually know, but are certain enough that you may as well know it) is rather important.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

But then I think that your being free, and perhaps pompous, with the term "knowledge". That's not (your saying only absolutely certain beliefs qualify as knowledge) how you were raised to use the term "knowledge", is it? I personally don't see good reason to deviate from common usage (where we have sensory knowledge, or knowledge based on memory, or knowledge based on another's testimony etc), even if that means that not all knowledge is certain. In fact why should I deviate from common usage? There seems to be no good reason as far as I can tell. And if I have no good reason, I don't see how you can either.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

But then I think that your being free, and perhaps pompous, with the term "knowledge". That's not (your saying only absolutely certain beliefs qualify as knowledge) how you were raised to use the term "knowledge", is it? I personally don't see good reason to deviate from common usage (where we have sensory knowledge, or knowledge based on memory, or knowledge based on another's testimony etc), even if that means that not all knowledge is certain. In fact why should I deviate from common usage? There seems to be no good reason as far as I can tell. And if I have no good reason, I don't see how you can either.

We deviate from the colloquial because it is inexact and idiomatically used ("I know in my heart of hearts...). If we want to talk sensibly about epistemology, about what knowledge really is, we use more precise terminology.

I'm not the one who came to this realisation; the inherent epistemological limits on what humans can 'know', and its consequences on how we talk about such things, are rather old topics.

Besides, this is just semantics. You can call it what you want. At the end of the day (figuratively speaking), there's still no good reason to conclude the truth of the existence of angels, even from the point of view of those who claim (however sincerely) to have experienced such visitations themselves.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

You say "this is just semantics" as if understanding or use of language, for instance the choice of definitions of terms doesn't really matter that much.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

You say "this is just semantics" as if understanding or use of language, for instance the choice of definitions of terms doesn't really matter that much.

Well, it doesn't, not really. So long as we understand each other, whether we use 'knowledge' to mean 'know to absolute certainty' or 'known to any degree of certainty' doesn't really matter - the interesting part of the discussion is the veracity of claims that angels exist, not the word used to denote a particular epistemological concept.
It's interesting in its own right, but not that interesting

 

[schrodingers_cat_lives]

Anyone out there ever read "the language of God" by francis collins?

i've known so many xians that know nothing of evolution and yet are so adamant in rejecting it..... don't want to face it...... fear it.
Genesis is an illustration....not literal....it's told in poetic form and very different from say the gospels or the epistles. The use of language and symbolism is quite obvious. It's a powerful illustration that speaks of the human condition, sin, marriage, future reconciliation with god and our rebellious nature, but it's not possible that it is literal given what we know just in geology alone. i was an English major and therefore had no problem understanding the literary language of genesis.

We know beyond a shadow of a doubt that the earth took several million yrs. to form and cool, not 7 literal days and yet there are those who hold on to the 7 day thing for dear life and are afraid that if genesis is not literal, then the rest of the bible isn't either. why is it that we accept the book of revelations as using symbolic language and imagery and yet not genesis? Both books hold core truths in that God is the maker of the universe and that christ is coming back...that he is the beginning and the end.

Anyway, i don't want to start a debate and i refuse to argue with other xians about this, i just don't understand the fear when so many scientists were and are believers.... there is harmony between science and faith....believers should be the first ones to integrate the two since it was our creator who ignited the spark and exploded all things into existence. "All of nature declares the glory of god....day and night it pours forth speech"..... there is order within the chaos.... science and theology define and explore 2 different planes of existence/realities, but they need not be opposing forces or contradictory in your head if approached with honesty and as much objectivity as you can humanely muster.

i'm a xian and loooooooooooooooooooove science....in fact, the more i learn about evolution, cosmology, physics, mathematics etc, the stronger my faith becomes. To those believers out there who aren't afraid to hear the case for evolution from a xian perspective, I strongly recommend that you check out the book "language of god" written by a well respected xian scientist who spearheaded the genome project. In fact i challenge you to read that book before attacking Darwin's theory. Oh and as a side note: "theory" in science is not the same thing as "theory" in common language.

p.s. for those xians who want to debate with me about evolution, don't bother cause i won't fall into that ridiculous pit. Feel free to debate it with others here, but i'm just saying not to bother debating with me since it's fruitless for me and a waste of time. Not trying to be rude, it's just...well....been there done that....get my gist?