19 Sep 07
Originally posted by eagleeye222001No, I don't think there was any intelligence guiding anything in the evolutionary process.
Science and religion should not contradict but rather reaffirm each other.
As for evolution and intelligent design, it would be ridiculous of someone to say that it had to be only one or the other. Rather it is much more likely that it was a combination.
19 Sep 07
Originally posted by eagleeye222001Now there's a ridiculous statement if ever I've heard it. Actually two ridiculous statements ...
Science and religion should not contradict but rather reaffirm each other.
As for evolution and intelligent design, it would be ridiculous of someone to say that it had to be only one or the other. Rather it is much more likely that it was a combination.
Science and religion reaffirming each other?
Evolution and intelligent design combined?
19 Sep 07
Originally posted by amannionYou don't think that science can be used to prove a literal 6 day creation? I would think that it would have to be one way or another. It was either millions of years, or God created the world in 6 days.
Now there's a ridiculous statement if ever I've heard it. Actually two ridiculous statements ...
Science and religion reaffirming each other?
Evolution and intelligent design combined?
I believe there is evidence to affirm a 6 days creation. I did not come to this ascertian overnight. It took months to study and understand.
19 Sep 07
Originally posted by whodeyPeople in science are trained to reason based on evidence that has be substantiated experimentally, evidence that can be reproduced if necessary. Of course people trained in the sciences are going to be more skeptical of religion.
This should tell us that the church has chosen to wage war with science because the findings of science have been deemed to be heretical with Biblical teachings as in the day of Galileo. In fact, the church is the one who has drawn an imaginary line in the sand by saying either choose the Biblcial teaching or the educated scientific findings.
I suppose it ...[text shortened]... ll enough versed in both, which is rare to say the least, you would not have this discrepency.
Especially since the concept of natural selection flies in the face of Genesis - actually, the whole Bible. People are animals. Natural selection is entirely consistent with genetics.
Religious texts are inconsistent, have mistakes, and some of what is written in those texts cannot be proven to be true.
I respect moral values, the stories in the Bible, and what we can learn from them. Very much so. I take those into consideration and I am satisfied so I have no need for the ritualistic aspects of religion or belief in an all-powerful all-knowing undetectable being.
19 Sep 07
Originally posted by freightdog37There are many more mythical models for the creation of the world as plausible as the 6 day one.
You don't think that science can be used to prove a literal 6 day creation? I would think that it would have to be one way or another. It was either millions of years, or God created the world in 6 days.
I believe there is evidence to affirm a 6 days creation. I did not come to this ascertian overnight. It took months to study and understand.
You believe there is evidence to affirm 6 days creation?? I laugh at that, I'm sorry.
Explain your main points of your several month study, please.
19 Sep 07
Originally posted by amannionWhy are they ridiculous?
Now there's a ridiculous statement if ever I've heard it. Actually two ridiculous statements ...
Science and religion reaffirming each other?
Evolution and intelligent design combined?
Could not natural selection be a process or choice made by some god or other?
Could science not find god sitting on a cloud around some space rock somewhere and surely, if there is a god, it created science.
Science and religion do often say the same kind of thing though both use different imagery and models to get their point across.
Furthermore, just because some people, remarkably, believe what it says in the bible that doesn't mean they represent the idea of religion.
19 Sep 07
Originally posted by freightdog37I dislike the word proof when used for anything other than mathematical or logical proofs. However if you mean irrefutable evidence then there is lots and lots of irrefutable evidence for the millions of years and zero irrefutable evidence for a 6 day creation. But I am sure you simply don't want to hear that.
You don't think that science can be used to prove a literal 6 day creation? I would think that it would have to be one way or another. It was either millions of years, or God created the world in 6 days.
I believe there is evidence to affirm a 6 days creation. I did not come to this ascertian overnight. It took months to study and understand.
Well, if you truly do understand it then why not present some of your evidence and we will happily test your understanding and probably show you that you do not actually understand it at all.
19 Sep 07
Originally posted by serigadoYou will not discuss moral issues? Are they any less significant than scientific issues or does it make you feel uncomfortable being out of your area of expertise?
[b]aha! That's the point. Your truth resides in the Bible. I won't discuss writings related to moral questions or guides, or what to do with love, and respect and how to behave. I can accept them.
There are many things in the bible that make sense. I'm not saying it's full of lies. But there are many wrong things there. Well... I can't say 100% they are wrong, but they are incoherent with things I can see in the nature at the present time.
As far as the Bible being incoherent with things you see in nature, can you elaborate?
19 Sep 07
2 edits
Originally posted by serigadoMy only point here is to reveal that you do not understand everything becuase science does not understand everything. There are, at times, gaps in our understanding yet we continue on despite these gaps in our understanding. For example, what is the equation that combines quantum mechanics and the theory of relativity? To my knowledge this still stumps scientists yet we know and have faith that there is a connection.
.
The discussion is about those things. People who don't know physics about brakes TRUST their mechanic, the engineers and other people who were responsible for making those brakes. We made a society based on trust among us. I trust many things I can't comprehend fully, but that someone else does. More importantly, I know that if i study them, I will understa ...[text shortened]... he forces in physics, quantum mechanics, and how everything relates. What do you want to know?[/b]
19 Sep 07
Originally posted by whodeyNo we don't. We only hope the two can be reconciled and are trying extremely hard to find a way to do it because if we can't then one or both of these theories are wrong and that will make everybody have to work even harder.
what is the equation that combines quantum mechanics and the theory of relativity? To my knowledge this still stumps scientists yet we know and have faith that there is a connection.
19 Sep 07
Originally posted by whodeyI can discuss moral issues, in another topic. It doesn't make feel uncomfortable, but moral issues are opinion dependent. One can't say it should be like this or that for sure. It's all about education and society where you live.
You will not discuss moral issues? Are they any less significant than scientific issues or does it make you feel uncomfortable being out of your area of expertise?
As far as the Bible being incoherent with things you see in nature, can you elaborate?
Incoherences in the Bible are the things we've been discussing. Creation of the universe, evolution (i don't know where the bible denies evolution, but apparently evolution is against something fundamental to you), the very resurrection of jesus, there are more.
19 Sep 07
Originally posted by whodeyWhat do you mean by that? Dirac's equation is one such thing. The Klein-Gordon equation is another such thing. And then we got the equation that predicts Hawking radiation. So...
For example, what is the equation that combines quantum mechanics and the theory of relativity?
But what we lack is a coherent theory that unifies both of them. Even though we have a lot of very good approxiamtions. Any field theory that you can think of is an quantum-mechanical relativistic theory in essence.
19 Sep 07
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeyOf course science does not understand everything. There are things so much complex, you couldn't imagine. These gaps in the understanding exist because things are SO complex, and only very recently we've been starting to study them, thanks to great advances in science. Progress is made every day, at a huge scale. To eliminate those gaps. You ask for the equation that combines quantum mechanics and relativity, it exists. It's complicated, and only works within the approximations where it is valid.
My only point here is to reveal that you do not understand everything becuase science does not understand everything. There are, at times, gaps in our understanding yet we continue on despite these gaps in our understanding. For example, what is the equation that combines quantum mechanics and the theory of relativity? To my knowledge this still stumps scientists yet we know and have faith that there is a connection.
The way you pose "he have faith there is a connection" is wrong. We don't have "faith" in that. There's a lot of evidence that connection exists. Simply humans didn't have yet the time the produce the equation to model that connection.
You know, science is not as simple as opening a book and reading the answers.