Proof of God vs. science.?

Question

If all this happened in billions and billions of years we would not grow old and die. PERIOD!

What do you think.

If it took billions and billions of years to grow eyes, hears, lungs, whatever, then wouldn't we over time live longer and longer, sure we'd end up dying, but by now, we'd live for thousands of years.

Answer 1

Great point!!...as some have " realized" there was no begining and there will be no end.

Answer 2

What you have to consider is that historically problems of age were a very small problem.

It doesn't matter if you can live to be a thousand years old if a disease kills you. Or if a tiger eats you. Or if you die from exposure to heat or cold. Or starvation. Or any number of things.

It wasn't too long ago that children weren't given names for a few years because they simply died too often to make it worth becoming attached to them. Many societies used to need 90% of their population to grow food and still often didn't grow enough. Even now disease kills more people than war or age or anything else - and that's WITH modern antibiotics and medicine!

There's no point for a creature to be able to live a long time if it's not likely to anyway. Would you buy a hundred years of car insurance, knowing that your car isn't likely to last more than ten?

Answer 3

I am a Christian, and one who has no difficulty accepting sound scientific theory. The notion that there is any conflict between God and science is founded on particular beliefs about God, beliefs which I find peculiar.

It sounds as though you believe the time required for the universe to reach its present condition after the Big Bang (or perhaps just for life on earth to emerge and evolve to its present state) would somehow provide a basis for expecting age and death to be impossible.

Unless you are trying to count generations, say from Adam, and apply an average time-span to human life that spread humanity's existence over the entire time required, I can't see the basis for your argument.

And if you are trying to do that, you are oversimplifying, essentially introducing as an assumption exactly what you intended to prove in the first place.

Answer 4

I think that's something of a spurious conclusion. If you're coming from an evolutionary standpoint, then you only need to survive long enough to breed in order for the system to work.

Evolution doesn't say that over time a species will get more and more awesome, it just says that animals who are able to breed (who survive long enough or who have some other advantage) will pass on their genetic material and so the genetic structure of the species will change based on the genetic structure of the ones who get to have more babies.

Say some mother gives birth to babies with laser eyes (AWESOME!), but all of her babies, by unlucky coincidence are infertile (sad!!). Laser eyes will not make it into the genetic pool despite how awesome they are.

So no, our mortality does not combat the likelihood of evolution.

Answer 5

If you would like to study someone who adamantly believed in both Science and Religion you should study this man:

http://space.about.com/cs/astronomerbios/a/lemaitrebio.htm

Not sure I understand where you are going with the "we would not grow old and die".

Practically, all things, have a beginning and an end.

Answer 6

The Franciscan Wm. of Ockham said there is no theological argument for, nor scientific proof of, God's existence, and that belief must be based entirely on faith.
I agree.

Answer 7

I'm sorry. I don't understand the question. You think that because the earth is about 5 billion years old....? I don't know what you think from that. What is your premise?

Answer 8

It's always been survival of the fittest...all species grow old (or become ill; become injured), and die. This can be looked at in a religious or scientific way.