# If you can make rocks....



## JB0704 (Jun 2, 2014)

....you can make life.  So claims the director of the Harvard Origins of Life initiative.

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2014...t-17-times-heavier-than-our-world-discovered/



> "Finding Kepler-10c tells us that rocky planets could form much earlier than we thought," Sasselov said in a statement. "And if you can make rocks, you can make life."



What would such a claim be considered if not made by a scientist?


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 3, 2014)

JB0704 said:


> ....you can make life.  So claims the director of the Harvard Origins of Life initiative.
> 
> http://www.foxnews.com/science/2014...t-17-times-heavier-than-our-world-discovered/
> 
> ...




A theory?


----------



## JB0704 (Jun 3, 2014)

ambush80 said:


> A theory?



It's the finality of the assertion which has me interested.  I did not know one meant the other.  Should be plenty of within our own solar system if such is the case.


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 3, 2014)

JB0704 said:


> What would such a claim be considered if not made by a scientist?



Probably put ya in the looney bin. 

But as we all know, scientists are not biased and only tell the truth.


----------



## DCHunter (Jun 3, 2014)

Is he saying if you have rocks, then you have heavier atoms, such as carbon that is necessary for life, and not just helium and hydrogen and such?


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 3, 2014)

stringmusic said:


> Probably put ya in the looney bin.
> 
> But as we all know, scientists are not biased and only tell the truth.


Howdy String. Hope all is well for you and your family.


----------



## swampstalker24 (Jun 3, 2014)

You are obviously oversimplifying his statement.  What he is saying is that if it was possible for the planet to have geological processes like other rocky planets, then it would be logical to assume that it is possible for it to also have the biological processes necessary to evolve life. Key word being "possible".  A planet that larger would generally be a "gas giant" like Jupiter, but has surprised scientist because it is in fact a rocky planet.  It is generally accepted in the scientific community that life would be more likely to form on rocky planets rather than gas giants.


----------



## JB0704 (Jun 3, 2014)

swampstalker24 said:


> You are obviously oversimplifying his statement.  What he is saying is that if it was possible for the planet to have geological processes like other rocky planets, then it would be logical to assume that it is possible for it to also have the biological processes necessary to evolve life. Key word being "possible".



Such a leap is not allowed by Christians around here, I just had to point out the scientists doing so, and now you  .  You went from geological possibilities to biological possibilities. His statement is straight forward, and simple.....one means the other is possible.  I'm sure mars and the moon are both glad to hear it.



swampstalker24 said:


> A planet that larger would generally be a "gas giant" like Jupiter, but has surprised scientist because it is in fact a rocky planet.  It is generally accepted in the scientific community that life would be more likely to form on rocky planets rather than gas giants.



What this planet discovery did is expand the unknowns, rather than define the knowns.  They did not believe a planet this large would have rocks.

Reading the article, it seems the planet has a 45 day year, and is most likely not hispitable to life.


----------



## swampstalker24 (Jun 3, 2014)

JB0704 said:


> Such a leap is not allowed by Christians around here, I just had to point out the scientists doing so, and now you  .  You went from geological possibilities to biological possibilities. His statement is straight forward, and simple.....one means the other is possible.  I'm sure mars and the moon are both glad to hear it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You must not keep up with science very much do ya?  You ever heard of an underwater geo-thermal vent?  It is a geologic process that leads to a thriving biological process.  Some scientist even go as far as saying that these vents are where life on this planet began.....


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 3, 2014)

WaltL1 said:


> Howdy String. Hope all is well for you and your family.



You too Walt.

Although with having a 2 1/2 year old boy, I don't know if we are ever "well" lol. Circus music follows us around in our daily lives.

.... And I wouldn't change it for the world!

Hope to be able to get on here a lil more in about a month or two, I sure do miss discussion with y'all.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jun 4, 2014)

What he's saying is that, given our sample size of 1, a rocky body is more likely to produce life than a gas giant. Is that the only criteria, no, and you're obviously smart enough to know that. However, there's no point in checking off the other boxes, or even attempting to, if you don't hit the first one, again sticking with the model we know supports life. It may have a form of H2O in the atmosphere, an atmosphere at all, it may have a magnetic field, but if it doesn't have a firm surface, within the habitable zone of the star, we have no reason to believe that complex life will form. Now, if we expand that to the search for any life, microbial, bacterial and otherwise then the environs in which it may exist grow rapidly, even here on earth. 

I'm willing to bet that the author, or the editor, cut down what was surely a longer speech on the matter. 

Rocks do not equal life, but rocks plus other criteria increase the _chances_ of life. 

Yes, it was oversimplified in this article, but there's no reason to assume that it wasn't simply a phrase chosen for expedience than scientific accuracy, since most Americans have the attention span of a fruit fly with ADHD, or simply edited down to smaller bites, again for the attention spans of the intended audience.


----------



## 660griz (Jun 4, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Yes, it was oversimplified in this article, but there's no reason to assume that it wasn't simply a phrase chosen for expedience than scientific accuracy, since most Americans have the attention span of a fruit fly with ADHD, or simply edited down to smaller bites, again for the attention spans of the intended audience.



Exactly, and furthermore..oooh a piece of candy.


----------



## JB0704 (Jun 4, 2014)

I get what you guys are saying.....but you are missing my point.

Such generalizations, and particulary such claims, are not allowed from Christians.  I am enjoying you guys giving the scientists a pass, when science is supposed to be our standard for declaring the known only by the known.  The statement was just a scientist theorizing on certain things by taking some logical leaps.  Christians, however, are not given such grace.


----------



## JB0704 (Jun 4, 2014)

swampstalker24 said:


> You must not keep up with science very much do ya?  You ever heard of an underwater geo-thermal vent?  It is a geologic process that leads to a thriving biological process.  Some scientist even go as far as saying that these vents are where life on this planet began.....



And, monkeys live in trees live in dirt.  Dirt don't mean trees don't mean monkeys.

Come on, man. 

(I am eagerly anticipating the discussion on the organic material found in dirt, we'll break it down even further then)


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jun 4, 2014)

JB0704 said:


> I get what you guys are saying.....but you are missing my point.
> 
> Such generalizations, and particulary such claims, are not allowed from Christians.  I am enjoying you guys giving the scientists a pass, when science is supposed to be our standard for declaring the known only by the known.  The statement was just a scientist theorizing on certain things by taking some logical leaps.  Christians, however, are not given such grace.



Sample size of life bearing planets = (irrefutably) 1

Sample size of God= ??? (let alone which God to whom at which time, all with ne'er a lick of proof.)

Sure, there are many who *believe* he exists, but nearly 100% of children told of the Claus also *believe* he exists. Belief is the only argument a faithful person has for "evidence" since nearly all of the rest of it holds less water than a coffee filter. 

So yeah, extrapolations based on a limited sample size are prone to error, but the difference between 0 and 1 is infinity, mathematically, so science's extrapolations based on their observations of life are infinitely better than those used to prop up religion as "factual."

I'm not "giving them a pass." I'm acknowledging that their data is better than yours...


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jun 4, 2014)

Further, I'm not even saying that you can't, or shouldn't, believe. That's fine with me. 

All I want the faithful to do is stop using words like truth, fact, and knowledge, in the universal sense.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jun 4, 2014)

Still, even if they didn't placate my desires that's fine with me, too. 

I know what I believe to be the truth of things, and I'm happy with my world view, and so are they. Other than disagreeing with the source of our morality, they tend to line up pretty closely, except I have deductive reasoning supporting mine, where most of them just, literally, take theirs from, and as, gospel. 

Either way, world keeps on spinnin'.


----------



## JB0704 (Jun 4, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> All I want the faithful to do is stop using words like truth, fact, and knowledge, in the universal sense.



I understand.  I just don't know why you guys won't call out your own for the same logical leaps.


----------



## JB0704 (Jun 4, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Either way, world keeps on spinnin'.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jun 4, 2014)

JB0704 said:


> I understand.  I just don't know why you guys won't call out your own for the same logical leaps.



It's not called a logical leap when it's based on hard evidence and data. It's called extrapolation. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extrapolation

If religion had true hard evidence then everyone would believe, just like we all believe that there is life on earth, because everyone can see it in their own lives. 

Religion is, therefore, a logical leap, truly; where science about xenobiology is extrapolation, prone to error based on limited sample size.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 4, 2014)

JB0704 said:


> I understand.  I just don't know why you guys won't call out your own for the same logical leaps.


I think the answer is in your question. 
As was said his statement is super simplified. But still based in scientific fact.
And I think its important that the word "life" was used and not "human life".

EDIT  just saw StripeRR's response.  What he said.


----------



## JB0704 (Jun 4, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> It's not called a logical leap when it's based on hard evidence and data. It's called extrapolation.



There is no hard evidence of life springing from rocks.  I can extrapolate that the GON forum has produced a lot of AA's, given I meet so many on here, but such would be silly, as there are infinite variables left to consider.



StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Religion is, therefore, a logical leap, truly; where science about xenobiology is extrapolation, prone to error based on limited sample size.



Then, they should not say "if you can make rocks, you can make life."

That's my only point here.  This is not a support of religion thread, it is identifying a little bit of intellectual hypocrisy in the scientific community......I almost posted an article on here a month or so ago where scientists concluded that ancient "mega-crocodiles" killed with a death roll....."because there was no evidence they did not." 

It happens.


----------



## JB0704 (Jun 4, 2014)

WaltL1 said:


> But still based in scientific fact.



Walt, I do not think it is a settled fact that the same configuration for rocks equals the ability for life.  There are infinite variables, and it is still not settled that life is sourced via abiogenesis.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jun 4, 2014)

JB0704 said:


> There is no hard evidence of life springing from rocks.  I can extrapolate that the GON forum has produced a lot of AA's, given I meet so many on here, but such would be silly, as there are infinite variables left to consider.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That's the thing, look at his quote again...



> "Finding Kepler-10c tells us that rocky planets could form much earlier than we thought," Sasselov said in a statement. "And if you *can* make rocks, you *can* make life."



Can, not do. He's not saying that life springs from rocks, but that our sample size of 1 shows that life forms on rocky worlds. 

He knows, and you know, that there are other criteria to consider but rocks are the first check box, with a whole host of others following, to include water, atmosphere, and magnetosphere. 

The problem here is one of interpretation and semantics. You read "can" as "do." 

Do you think that Jonah was literally swallowed by a whale? 

Or that Noah built a boat so large as to hold 2 of every creature on the planet? 

Loaves and fishes?

What about the others? Basically, is the Bible literal, or metaphorical, and where is that described? 

Because the Bible said he WAS swallowed by the whale, that Noah did build a boat that big, and that so few loaves and fishes fed an impossible amount of people. They didn't say "can," or "might" or "proverbially;" they said "do," did," and "has." 

They may appear small on the surface, but the difference between those words is the difference between an assertion and an educated guess.


----------



## JB0704 (Jun 4, 2014)

He is concluding that if you can make rocks, you can make life.  This is not a valid conclusion based on the sample size, given we have a lot more examples of rocky planets without life, than we have of rocky planets with life.

The statement also assumes that you "can" make life.

And, again, this is not a defense of religion thread.  It's a healthy dose of skepticism which should be applied evenly to the information we encounter.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jun 4, 2014)

JB0704 said:


> He is concluding that if you can make rocks, you can make life.  This is not a valid conclusion based on the sample size, given we have a lot more examples of rocky planets without life, than we have of rocky planets with life.
> 
> The statement also assumes that you "can" make life.



Again can, not do. He's leaving the possibility open that it might exist in other environs, or that it might not come forth at all and that we are an immense statistical anomaly. 

Can is uncertain in this context. Do would be absolute, and if he had used that I would be right there with you in condemning his error.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jun 4, 2014)

I retract my questions about your indulgence of metaphors because even you said that it's not the point. 

The point being is that, on the surface, you seem to misunderstand his use of the word _can._


----------



## JB0704 (Jun 4, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Again can, not do. He's leaving the possibility open that it might exist in other environs, or that it might not come forth at all and that we are an immense statistical anomaly.
> 
> Can is uncertain in this context. Do would be absolute, and if he had used that I would be right there with you in condemning his error.



Can assumes the ability exists, and the statement assumes there is a correlation.


----------



## JB0704 (Jun 4, 2014)

......I do believe I may have gotten a new thread going


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jun 4, 2014)

JB0704 said:


> Can assumes the ability exists, and the statement assumes there is a correlation.



Our sample suggests there's a correlation. It's weak, and I'm sure he would even admit it, but it does exist. Earth is a rocky world that holds life so, if you have rocks, and then have *everything* else that the earth has, then you *should, not definitively will,* have life.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 4, 2014)

JB0704 said:


> Walt, I do not think it is a settled fact that the same configuration for rocks equals the ability for life.  There are infinite variables, and it is still not settled that life is sourced via abiogenesis.


Agreed. But I think you are taking it "literally"
For example I have the ingredients to make a cake in my kitchen. Therefore I "can" make a cake.
But a whole lot of things have to happen correctly before those ingredients turn into a cake. If a step is left out its not a cake. But it could have been.
Saying I "can" make a cake was correct.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jun 4, 2014)

1. The frequent creation of new religions, and new Gods within them, suggests that, in the future there can be more created with other Gods being worshiped. 

2. The frequent creation of new religions, and new Gods within them, suggests that, in the future there will be more created with other Gods being worshiped. 

#1 is in the spirit of what I believe he was trying to say. 

#2 is in the spirit of how you heard it, and the difference is certainty. 

I didn't read certainty in his use of can, where you did. We're both right and both wrong since we're discussing this without his input, and that it, even then, would have little difference in our individual opinions on the origin of life and the possibility of it throughout the universe.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jun 4, 2014)

WaltL1 said:


> Agreed. But I think you are taking it "literally"
> For example I have the ingredients to make a cake in my kitchen. Therefore I "can" make a cake.
> But a whole lot of things have to happen correctly before those ingredients turn into a cake. If a step is left out its not a cake. But it could have been.
> Saying I "can" make a cake was correct.



Yes. Exactly.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jun 4, 2014)

Gotta get the monkey mixer tuned just right for life to spring up.


----------



## JB0704 (Jun 4, 2014)

WaltL1 said:


> For example I have the ingredients to make a cake in my kitchen. Therefore I "can" make a cake.
> But a whole lot of things have to happen correctly before those ingredients turn into a cake. If a step is left out its not a cake. But it could have been.
> Saying I "can" make a cake was correct.



With cakes, we know the step, with life, we do not.

And, you are correct, I am taking it way more literally intended, but, only to prove a point (which is still valid, I believe), and get us discussing something a little different......


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jun 4, 2014)

JB0704 said:


> With cakes, we know the step, with life, we do not.
> 
> And, you are correct, I am taking it way more literally intended, but, only to prove a point (which is still valid, I believe), and get us discussing something a little different......



It's valid because you feel it, I just don't consider it to be accurate, but neither do you mine. 

To apply his statement to Walt's metaphor, 

Our data shows that if you can make meal, you can make a cake...

Of course, if you can make meal you can also make bread, or flapjacks. Or you could leave it as meal. 

But, you can not have a cake without meal, despite having the other ingredients. 

Did you seriously expect him to lay out all of the possibilities for that "meal" when all this conference was talking about is "cake" or "not cake"?


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 4, 2014)

JB0704 said:


> With cakes, we know the step, with life, we do not.
> 
> And, you are correct, I am taking it way more literally intended, but, only to prove a point (which is still valid, I believe), and get us discussing something a little different......


If your point is that science isn't exact and some things we think we know today turns out be wrong tomorrow, you'll get no argument from me.
On the flip side, something that is a mystery today, science may discover tomorrow and at some point will no longer be a mystery.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jun 4, 2014)

Rocks, pun not intended, are foundational to our understanding of life. An example could come up tomorrow that shows us another way to "make a cake" but it seems logical to focus our efforts in areas that we know, based on our limited sample size, for life to at least have a chance...


----------



## JB0704 (Jun 4, 2014)

WaltL1 said:


> If your point is that science isn't exact and some things we think we know today turns out be wrong tomorrow, you'll get no argument from me.
> On the flip side, something that is a mystery today, science may discover tomorrow and at some point will no longer be a mystery.



No doubt, and we agree on that.  My only point is that making assertions based on shaky conclusions, from a factual perspective anyway, is not exclusive to religion.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 4, 2014)

JB0704 said:


> No doubt, and we agree on that.  My only point is that making assertions based on shaky conclusions, from a factual perspective anyway, is not exclusive to religion.


Ive been trying to leave religion out of it but and I think StripeRR has already hit on it, is that you can NOT compare factually or otherwise the "rocks and life" statement to religion. The rocks and life has actual data, facts, logic etc behind it.
Religion has "I believe" behind it.
Respectfully, that's a huge difference and there's no getting around it.


----------



## JB0704 (Jun 4, 2014)

WaltL1 said:


> Ive been trying to leave religion out of it but and I think StripeRR has already hit on it, is that you can NOT compare factually or otherwise the "rocks and life" statement to religion. The rocks and life has actual data, facts, logic etc behind it.
> Religion has "I believe" behind it.
> Respectfully, that's a huge difference and there's no getting around it.



We know both exist in the same place in one circumstance, but that does not support the conclusion.  It is a circumstance to use in forming theories and ideas.

If you can make rocks, it means you can make rocks.  To me, that is the fact.  The second half of the statement is speculation.  Until it can be proven that life can be made, it is just a theory.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 4, 2014)

JB0704 said:


> I get what you guys are saying.....but you are missing my point.
> 
> Such generalizations, and particulary such claims, are not allowed from Christians.  I am enjoying you guys giving the scientists a pass, when science is supposed to be our standard for declaring the known only by the known.  The statement was just a scientist theorizing on certain things by taking some logical leaps.  Christians, however, are not given such grace.



JB, the difference for me is that I take most of the the statements made by scientists with a grain of salt. I believe they are onto something more in depth than any of the nit wit Yahoo article writers can convey, let alone take the time to try to convey. I think that more likely than not that particular scientist has been involved in studying the correlation of what rocks are made of and what "life" is made of and the research has turned up something to back his theory. In all honesty I would love to hear more of what he has to say especially what he meant with that statement. He gets a pass from me because I do not immediately think he is correct without having more information that backs up what he said.
On the other hand, words that are 5000 to 2000 years old written in a book with absolutely nothing to back them up yet are rattled off as facts by people who admittedly have absolutely ZERO knowledge of what is true and what is not......color me skeptical.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 5, 2014)

http://www.simonsfoundation.org/fun...tion-on-the-origins-of-life-dimitar-sasselov/

http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/on_discovering_life/


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 5, 2014)

JB0704 said:


> We know both exist in the same place in one circumstance, but that does not support the conclusion.  It is a circumstance to use in forming theories and ideas.
> 
> If you can make rocks, it means you can make rocks.  To me, that is the fact.  The second half of the statement is speculation.  Until it can be proven that life can be made, it is just a theory.





> We know both exist in the same place in one circumstance, but that does not support the conclusion.  It is a circumstance to use in forming theories and ideas.


I'm going to go out on a limb and say his "theory" doesn't consist of just "well earth has rocks and life therefore if a planet has rocks it also will have life".
I understand his statement to mean - if the circumstances are such that rocks can be formed, based on what we know, those same circumstances lend themselves to the possibility of life.
Now those aren't the exact same words he used. Its me using my understanding of science to translate. Which of course could be wrong. But I base my translation on -
"If you can make rocks you can make life" doesn't say "you will make life" or " all rocky planets have life" or anything definitive like that. Only that you "can" make life. And refer back to my post about making a cake. 
So yes we could call it a theory or idea. But they aren't based on nothing. That's pretty much what science is. Based on what we know, you then form theories and ideas, and here is where religion and science differ, you move forward and either prove those theories and ideas right or wrong.


> Until it can be proven that life can be made, it is just a theory.


Agreed. As is the theory that there is a God and he made us. Now show me where religion is working diligently to prove that theory right or wrong.
If you were to use the same "testing criteria" on religion that you are using on his statement you might not like where you end up.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jun 5, 2014)

Maybe he just got done watching Dodgeball. If you can dodge a wrench, you can dodge a ball...


----------



## JB0704 (Jun 5, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Maybe he just got done watching Dodgeball. If you can dodge a wrench, you can dodge a ball...



Great movie.  Patches O'Houlihan is my hero.


----------



## ted_BSR (Jun 5, 2014)

Sorry I am late getting involved. A close lightning strike rendered me off the grid for quite a few days. I have not quoted any one person because I do not want to call anyone out, but I do have some thoughts on the discussion.

The quote from the article in the OP is an assumption, not a theory.

Science doesn’t have anything to do with the truth.

Logic doesn’t have anything to do with the truth either.

Sample size of one = we have no clue (just faith).

Christians are CRAZY if they BELIEVE in something. Scientists are LOGICAL if they BELIEVE in something.

Extrapolation is a philosophical process, NOT a readily accepted scientific process. The EPA doesn’t let you do it, and your client won’t let you either because there is too much uncertainty. Interpolation is scientifically accepted by the EPA and your client. Interpolation = deduce between data points, not beyond them = extrapolation.

Can, and Do, are the difference between the possibilities, and the truth.

Rocks are not alive.

The rocks = life argument has so little data, that you might as well compare it to religion.

To summarize, I agree with the OP, and it is a fine point, that the holes that Christians (or religious people in general) are pushed through by the “logical” or “scientific” community are the very same holes that suck the “logical” or “scientific” folks into to uncertainty, or false certainty.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 5, 2014)

Close lightning strike....computer rendered off the grid......That has the makings of an angry God written all over it. 

Any scientist that says it is due to cold and warm air, ice crystals and water droplets, static electrical charges and positive/negative ends is obviously not being truthful.


----------



## ted_BSR (Jun 6, 2014)

bullethead said:


> Close lightning strike....computer rendered off the grid......That has the makings of an angry God written all over it.
> 
> Any scientist that says it is due to cold and warm air, ice crystals and water droplets, static electrical charges and positive/negative ends is obviously not being truthful.



That sounds (reads as) sarcastic. I hope that it was, because if not, it is quite ridiculous.

I am pretty sure it was sarcastic BH. Do you have anything relevant to add to the discussion?

If not, well, that is cool with me, we all need humor in our lives...

I like to laugh.


----------



## 660griz (Jun 6, 2014)

ted_BSR said:


> The quote from the article in the OP is an assumption, not a theory.


 Do you know a synonym for theory? Assumption



> Science doesn’t have anything to do with the truth.


 Science does have something to with facts which...are true.



> Logic doesn’t have anything to do with the truth either.


 Depends on the logic. To broad a statement. 0 AND 1 = 0, 1 AND 1 = 1 etc. True. 



> Sample size of one = we have no clue (just faith).


 Unless there is only one to sample. 



> Christians are CRAZY if they BELIEVE in something.


 Depends on what they believe. Believing in God is not crazy. Believing God talks to them through bushes, plates, dogs, etc...crazy.





> Scientists are LOGICAL if they BELIEVE in something.


 Not all. Some believe the earth is not a closed system.


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 6, 2014)

660griz said:


> Do you know a synonym for theory? Assumption
> 
> Science does have something to with facts which...are true.
> 
> ...



I would say that it depends on what evidence leads you to that belief.

Ted?  Why do you believe?


----------



## 660griz (Jun 6, 2014)

ambush80 said:


> I would say that it depends on what evidence leads you to that belief.



True. If your pet turtle told you.


----------



## ted_BSR (Jun 8, 2014)

ambush80 said:


> I would say that it depends on what evidence leads you to that belief.
> 
> Ted?  Why do you believe?



This is an interesting question Ambush. It is one I think you probably know the answer too, and one that if I answer, will create the opportunity for some to have a heyday picking apart that answer.

I will answer it none the less.

I believe in science because of my typical education. It is a finite system of theories, experimentation, and results that either support or do not support the hypothesis. That is simple enough.

I believe in God because of my typical education, not in spite of it, and my theological education (ongoing), and my life experiences, trial and error, my study of "other" religions (ongoing), the results of actions that I or others have taken, and the observed results of those actions, and the instinct of what my heart and soul tell me is the truth. Not quite as simple, and all the more compelling. Thanks for asking. Ted


----------

