To Science:
I feel like there are a lot of times that religious people makes fools of themselves, using weak, if having any weight at all, arguments and analogies that never seem to fit into what the rest of the scientific community says. Religious people will say "Prove there is no God" when they do not know of any proof that God does exist. There always seems to be a disconnection of issues between science and religion, because a lot of religious people don't know why they believe what they believe and people of science want proof before they can say something is true. Although, I think that people of science are equally at fault for blindly following what the rest of the scientific community tells them. So, I have a theory or rather a proposition: Let's take a step back and attempt to put away our biases and look at both arguments. I am going to be completely honest when I say that I do not understand all that happened that created this universe, I am not scientifically oriented and I am not going to attempt to argue a point because I feel I am not educated enough on the subject to make a definitive statement. So I have some questions, just things that have never seemed to really add up to me when it comes to the realm of science, these are simply ideas that do not make any sense to me and they are not designed to be offensive or overly critical.
1.) According to one of my old textbooks ('Geosystems' by Christopherson) 'Pangea' began its breakup about 65 million years ago. Humans have been said (by many of my atheist professors) that they started evolving 5-7 million years ago. My questions is: How is it that humans were evolving in different parts of the world while it was split apart? But really, How is it that different places produced the same species?
The reason I ask this is because the timeline doesn't seem to add up and the idea behind evolution is that species evolve according to their environment, that they adapt to their surroundings and that they eventually become another species.
2.) How is it that scientists come to the ages of different soils, rocks, fossils, etc.?
I have a hard time believing someone when they say "Well, 102 million years ago...." because they weren't there 102 million years ago. In reality it seems more like people just pull numbers out of thin air, and I know about the whole 'carbon-dating' thing - but that doesn't seem sufficient enough to make an absolute statement like most scientists do.
3.) How do you know that the 'Big Bang' happened?
This is partially tied to the previous question, I just don't understand how so many people can make a definitive statement on simply (what appears to be) someone's imagination. There is no proof. I once heard an atheist say "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" and I apologize...but there really doesn't seem to be any.
4.) Where are all the missing links?
Going off of the statement above (Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence) it seems that evolution needs an extraordinary amount of evidence to support it, and I have yet to see any. I have heard a lot of speculation and opinion but no 'hard' evidence.
To end the 'science' portion, I just want to reiterate that I am in no way attempting to debunk your claims, these are just legitimate questions that I have.
To religion (actually more towards Christianity):
1.) Why do believe that God (or an Intelligent Designer) exists?
I want you to really think about this question, because I think far too often a Christian will have a religious experience and immediately accept everything (especially if the person is younger) without thinking about why.
2.) How do you think you come across to an atheist?
Most people in the scientific community do not have much respect for those who believe that the universe was created. It is important to take a moment to think about this before rushing in to argue with a bunch of atheists, because I feel like having an intelligent conversation is significantly better than having a heated debate - because then both people can consider what the other has said rather than being stuck on 'winning the argument'.
I know that this post can have a negative effect on either side, all I ask is that when it comes to this debate - it's getting a little repetitive and ridiculous.
-In Christ
Roger W
