29 Jul 08
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeyWhen you say you talked to 'some evolutionists', who are you referring to?
If all were in agreement it would simply be a sign that all are wrong.
Whether you be an evolutionist or creationist you simply do not have all the anwers. To think otherwise would be to make oneself God. Unfortunatly, mankind has a nature in which pride tends to snuff out a general sense of humility and awe when studying such mysteries of God. Of cours ...[text shortened]... talked with some who claimed to know and be certain of things they simply had no way of proving.
People who simply agree with whatever evidence put forward by real scientists or the scientists themselves? If the former, they have no special knowledge other than what they read the same as me, just that they may agree with the scientists that there is a very strong case. Some of them may have good degrees and studied in more depth and know more. So which type are you talking about? I can dig up studies supporting evolution but am not nor ever will be an evolutionary scientist, so I can say with personal certainty I think there is a preponderance of evidence that I have read that strongly supports evolution. Creationists ONLY have genesis, a book a lot older than Christianity, which is btw, a religion not even started by Christ but by Paul, which only uses that book which is not even from their own faith but copied word for word from Jewish tradition so you got it second hand even at the beginning of Christianity. Christianity itself has nothing to say about the matter, having no books in its own bible, the new testament that covers this subject, so Christianity of itself cannot even say how the world came to be, they can only repeat the dogma of a far older religion.
30 Jul 08
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonI suppose it all has to do with ones imagination and/or interpretation of scripture. For example, you get the picture that man was made directly from the dust as where I get the picture that perhaps man was slowly evolved from the dust over time.
First you say I “generalizing” about Creationists when I said that “Creationists, on the other hand, as far as I can tell, don’t generally respond to any new scientific evidence that challenges details of their beliefs by modifying there beliefs” and then you say:
[b]…Creationists believe that man was formed from the dust of the earth. …
Th ...[text shortened]... evidence.
Is that not making exactly the same “generalizing” about Creationists that I made?[/b]
I will give you a better taste of what I am talking about. Here is an exerpt from a book called "Genesis and the Big Bang" by Dr. Gerald Schoeder.
"...the Bible first states that God will make man in God's image and likeness (Gen. 1:26). In the following verse it is written, God created mankind in his image, in the image of god He created him, male and female he created them. The verb make and create are both used, and so, from those two verses, it appears that both making and creating were involved in the appearance of the first of mankind. Later (Gen 2:7), it is explicitly stated that mankind is formed from a previously existing substance, in fact, the same substance used to form fowl and land animals (Gen 2:19). However, a special ingredient not mentioned before is summoned at this juncture. God breathes a neshamah, a "soul life", into this creature and man became a living being. Nahmanides in his "Commentary on Genesis" and Maimonides in his "Guide for the Perplexed" both state with no equivication that every material thing that was evnetually to exist was derived from what was created in the first instant of creation. That was the only material creation. Form that ethereal mass of pure energy and exquisitely thin substance, stones and galaxies and humans were to be formed. We are products of the Big Bang. We are, in fact, made of star dust. The material aspects of man are totally rooted in the universe."
So from the star dust known as planet earth, life was begun that gradually led to the evolving of mankind. Schroeder goes on to say:
"Nahamanides (on Gen. 2:7) obeserves that mankind developed through three distinct stages. The material of Adam's body was initially in the form of inert matter (the dust of the earth, Gen 2:7). In the first stage of growth, there was a force that produced growth, "like that in a plant". Then with further Divine input, man was able to move, first as the fish and then as the land animals. Here Nahamanides, still commenting on Genesis 2:7, refers to Genesis 1:20 and 1:24. These two verses describes the sequential first appearances of aquatic life and then terrestrial animal life. Prior to attaining the unique attribute of mankind, Nahamindes continues, the animal that was to become man had both the physical structure and the power of perception of a human. Only when this was accomplished was the spirit of God, the neshamah, breathed into him. Nahmanides concludes this discussion with the observation that the grammatical construction of this verse (Gen 2:7) indicates that reasoning, speech, and all other capabilities of mankind, while not being a part of the spirit, are subject to the spirit that was given to mankind alone among all the animals. God's direct and newly created contribution of spirit came to man only after the material part was intact. This contribution had no physical attribute."
His contemporary Maimonides seems to agree with this assessment by saying that "there coexisted animals that appeared as humans in shape and also intelligence but lacked the "image" that makes man uniquely different from other animals, being as the image of God."
30 Jul 08
1 edit
Originally posted by sonhouseTake Dawkins, for example, in the movie "Expelled". He stated in that movie that in his mind evolution proves that there is no God. Now how does evolution prove that there is no God or is the man daft and/or full of himself?
When you say you talked to 'some evolutionists', who are you referring to?
People who simply agree with whatever evidence put forward by real scientists or the scientists themselves? If the former, they have no special knowledge other than what they read the same as me, just that they may agree with the scientists that there is a very strong case. Some of ...[text shortened]... not even say how the world came to be, they can only repeat the dogma of a far older religion.
30 Jul 08
1 edit
Originally posted by sonhouseApparently you did not see my thread in the spirtuality forum about a stone discovered in the Middle East that seems to indicate something other than what you believe. The stone has been dated before the time of Christ and fortells of a coming Messiah who will die and in three days be raised from the dead and become the redemption of Israel. Therefore, your ascertion that Paul came up with it all has shown to be suspect at best.
Creationists ONLY have genesis, a book a lot older than Christianity, which is btw, a religion not even started by Christ but by Paul, which only uses that book which is not even from their own faith but copied word for word from Jewish tradition so you got it second hand even at the beginning of Christianity. Christianity itself has nothing to say about the m ...[text shortened]... annot even say how the world came to be, they can only repeat the dogma of a far older religion.[/b]
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/06world/middleeast/06stone.html?_r=1&partner=rssny+&emc=rss
If you have never studied the New and Old Testament and compared them I could see where you would get such ideas. However, Christ continually pointed to prophesies about himself in the Old Testament. Also, pprophesies such as the ones found in Revelation, for example, can be found throughout the Old Testament, especially in Daniel. It is not a new revelation, rather, it is simply an extrapolation of the prophesies of the OT. Therefore, I would say that Christianity is simply a continuation of the prophetic word of the OT.
30 Jul 08
Why is Science forum littered with religious litter all the time!?
Why cannot Science Forum be about science?
If you have religious arguments, and want to discuss religion - why don't you go to Spiritual Forum? There your opinions can be respected. Here in Science Forum you're not more than infectant ants...
31 Jul 08
Originally posted by FabianFnasBecause religion and science are two subjects bound together. Many scientists (well, Dawkins anyway) try to disprove the exitence of God/a god, while others (the example at the start of this thread) try to do the opposite. You will never get a discussion about science in the religion forum, and apparently religion cannot be discussed in the science forum.
Why is Science forum littered with religious litter all the time!?
Why cannot Science Forum be about science?
If you have religious arguments, and want to discuss religion - why don't you go to Spiritual Forum? There your opinions can be respected. Here in Science Forum you're not more than infectant ants...
31 Jul 08
Originally posted by SwlabrReligion and science cannot ever be related. If religion became science, it wouldn't be religion. If science became religion it wouldn't be science.
Because religion and science are two subjects bound together. Many scientists (well, Dawkins anyway) try to disprove the exitence of God/a god, while others (the example at the start of this thread) try to do the opposite. You will never get a discussion about science in the religion forum, and apparently religion cannot be discussed in the science forum.
Any try to disprove gods existence cannot be science. Any try to prove gods existance cannot be science. Science is simply not religion in nature!
So quoting the bible cannot ever be regarded as science, having thoughts about what god means or not cannot ever be science.
"... apparently religion cannot be discussed in the science forum..." - right so, rightly so.
Ban religion from science!
31 Jul 08
1 edit
Originally posted by FabianFnasThey were, to be honest, along the lines of my initial thoughts. However, is Dawkins not generally held in a rather high esteem precisely, from the general publics point of view, for this area of work?
Religion and science cannot ever be related. If religion became science, it wouldn't be religion. If science became religion it wouldn't be science.
Any try to disprove gods existence cannot be science. Any try to prove gods existance cannot be science. Science is simply not religion in nature!
So quoting the bible cannot ever be regarded as science be discussed in the science forum..." - right so, rightly so.
Ban religion from science!
Also, in banning religion from science should we not also ban science from religion?
31 Jul 08
2 edits
Originally posted by FabianFnasActually, the Bible is the only religious text I know of in which a science is based which is the study of Biblical Archeaology. It is not a group of zealots trying to prove that God exists, rather, it is simply a group of scientists who have come to the conclusion that the Bible is a rich source of history and is a most useful tool for their pursuits.
Why is Science forum littered with religious litter all the time!?
Why cannot Science Forum be about science?
If you have religious arguments, and want to discuss religion - why don't you go to Spiritual Forum? There your opinions can be respected. Here in Science Forum you're not more than infectant ants...
I wonder what they would say about banning religion and science?
31 Jul 08
Originally posted by whodeyThen it is archeology and History, not Religion.
Actually, the Bible is the only religious text I know of in which a science is based which is the study of Biblical Archeaology. It is not a group of zealots trying to prove that God exists, rather, it is simply a group of scientists who have come to the conclusion that the Bible is a rich source of history and is a most useful tool for their pursuits.
I wonder what they would say about banning religion and science?
Archeology is Science. Religion is not.
31 Jul 08
Originally posted by SwlabrCreationists are already banning science. Science cannot ever be part of religion.
Also, in banning religion from science should we not also ban science from religion?
I have never heard a scientist answer a "why"-question with "God wanted it to be that way." Religious people do often anwser in that way.
"Why is iron magnetic, but not copper?" "God wanted it to be that way." Bad science, bad science...
31 Jul 08
Originally posted by SwlabrDawkins doesn't try to scientifically prove that god doesn't exist. He expresses his view that god doesn't exist and argues that, however that isn't science.
They were, to be honest, along the lines of my initial thoughts. However, is Dawkins not generally held in a rather high esteem precisely, from the general publics point of view, for this area of work?
Also, in banning religion from science should we not also ban science from religion?
He has admitted that there can't be a way of proving completely that no god exists, but he simply claims it is extremely unlikely and that just about any god is about as likely to exist as any other.
31 Jul 08
Originally posted by whodeyThere's no problem with taking a hypothesis from the bible and seeing if you can prove/disprove it scientifically, although you couldn't do this with every claim in the bible.
Actually, the Bible is the only religious text I know of in which a science is based which is the study of Biblical Archeaology. It is not a group of zealots trying to prove that God exists, rather, it is simply a group of scientists who have come to the conclusion that the Bible is a rich source of history and is a most useful tool for their pursuits.
I wonder what they would say about banning religion and science?
For example, you could take the world wide flood and hypothesize that it happened. Then you could make falsifiable predictions based on that and see whether the evidence fits.
This doesn't make that scientific research religious, it just means you're trying to prove a hypothesis whose source is a religious text.
01 Aug 08
Originally posted by PsychoPawnHe does, however, put his views across in the same bundle as his science. His books are perceived as "popular science". However, I cannot really comment further as I have read nothing by him.
Dawkins doesn't try to scientifically prove that god doesn't exist. He expresses his view that god doesn't exist and argues that, however that isn't science.
He has admitted that there can't be a way of proving completely that no god exists, but he simply claims it is extremely unlikely and that just about any god is about as likely to exist as any other.
01 Aug 08
1 edit
Originally posted by PsychoPawnIs this the post you are concern about, the question you'd like me
No thanks, I get enough preaching.
You consistently refuse to answer any questions here, why should that change just because it's in the spirituality forum?
I'm asking you for scientific evidence that the bible is true. That is appropriate in the science forum.
Is there any actual, objective evidence?
The problem is, the facts on the ground are not consistent with the bible being literally true.
to answer?
I dislike the notion you want to bring up the Bible in this forum, when
I don't bring it up first, it is as if you want to some how undermind a
point being made about some other topic, by bringing in scripture.
With respect to directly answering your question, what part of the Bible
do you think needs to be backed up with science the Bible covers a lot
of topics, some can and some cannot be backed up with science. The
parts that cannot be are faith based, the parts that can, well they can,
and that would speak for itself.
Kelly