Home Just In Communities Forums Beta Readers Dictionary Search Login Register Extras
Reviews For: God vs Science?
littlemisscute 2009-11-27 . chapter 1
wow!! i loved this, despite the other bad reviews, who just say that because they are non-believers and dont really know any better. I'm a strong Christian and definatly against evolution. Oh yeah and your essay was written really well good job :-)
Slightly Obsessive 2008-12-14 . chapter 1
I can tell this was very well researched and thought out. The thesis is clearly explained and extrapolated.
DeepSixing 2008-12-10 . chapter 1
People who don't believe in evolution make me want to cry.

Please go back and get your scientific facts right before you debunk them with reasoning that only proves you never understood it in the first place. Carbon Dating is incredibly effective, as every object starts off with a certain amount of Carbon in it's system. This is very easy to figure out. After the thing starts to decay, half of the Carbon in the system will be left after about 5,0 years. After another 5,0, half of that will be gone, and after another 5k, half of that will be gone. It's a simple power of 2 that will lead scientists to figure how many half-lives the object went through to get from it's starting amount to it's amount at present time. It's a pretty no-brain thing that, for a college kid, you should have learned in tenth grade Chemistry, if not eleventh grade Physics.

I love essays like these. They make me so happy I don't believe in god. At least not in the same kind of god you believe in, whatever insecure and arrogant one it is. (What kind of Creator needs people to worship him, otherwise he'll get upset? Puh-lease.)
Tiefling 2008-12-09 . chapter 1
Interesting, and pretty well written.

"Therefore, the world argues, why believe in something you can’t understand?"

No, 'the world' doesn't argue that, some PEOPLE do. Just some.

"Most professors are going to push evolution as fact, despite the fact that it is even labeled as a theory, "

Do you understand the difference between the word theory as used in the vernacular and in the scientific sense?

"and despite the fact that Darwin himself admitted on his deathbed that he was wrong."

That's a myth with no basis in fact. Check out the article about it on Snopes . com. It's always a good idea to check on things like that instead of just repeating what you have heard without thinking. In any case, Darwin's personal beliefs have no bearing on whether or not the theory of evolultion is correct. It isn't based on the faith of one man (or many, for that matter). It is based on science.

"Whatever their stance towards faith of any kind, non–believers will almost always push science as the perfect proof that God does not exist."

Some do, yeah, and that is foolish. You can't scientifically prove or disprove the existance of God. Also, the issue of evolution has nothing to do with whether or not God exists. God could have created life using the method of evolution.

"This is my point: concepts of God and science absolutely do not conflict and should not be treated as though they do."

I agree.

"Evolution, on the other hand, is quite improvable, because there is nothing to test..."

What about studies in genetics, with breeding and cross-breeding for particular characteristics which demonstrate a 'smaller version' of the principles behind evolution.

"Some would argue that it takes more faith to believe in evolution than God, although I would personally argue that it takes more desperation."

Desperation? Why? Personally, from the reading I have done, the theory of evolution seems credible to me. If something more credible came along I'd change my mind. Where's the desperation in that? I have nothing invested in the idea. I don't NEED it to be true.

The long string of Biblical quotes bored me a little.
Bloody Doll 2008-12-09 . chapter 1
First of, even if there is a God, he is neither all-powerful nor all-knowing.

In fact God has nothing to do with us; we are the the inner workings of a magnetic reaction that can be seen as God but is only the result of natural occurence.

Have you ever studied the universe, child? Can you explain Black Holes to me? Radiation? Millions of stars and galaxies?

How can you label something that -created- us as "God."

That's like saying something out there views maintenance of the galaxies as a "job."

Do you really want to be controlled under something that considers you a speck of dust? Part of the machine?

Who are you to say that whatever it is that controls the universe automatically believes humans are the absolute species?

For all you know, whatever it is that controls us doesn't give a crap about us. It may value fire over you anyday; afterall, fire is going to "live" longer than any human in existence.

Do you think of God as human-like? Or as a vast amount of energy?

Because if I were going to put my faith in something I believed was the mass creator of the whole universe, I'd have to say energy before humanity.
Maranwe Telrunya 2008-12-09 . chapter 1
Awesome Essay, Justin. Just one comment: maybe the reason He does not tell us everything about Him is because we cannot understand it, and with our pitiful human minds, we cannot even grasp at it. There are things we know about God and His workings already that we cannot grasp or understand- Predestination and Man's Free Will, for example. How do those two things coexist? I know I have no idea but I believe that God has predestined us and I believe that we have the free will to choose. I just can't explain how that works. Heh.

Anyway. Solid argument, and I just wanted to say "well duh." to science not being able to go against God. But I knew that already. ;)

~K
Return to Top