Bible Fault

Originally posted by lucifershammer
If you're talking purely about the investigation of natural laws and phenomena, then you'd be correct.

If you're talking about applied science, however, you'd be wrong. Science, as a method, cannot make moral judgments on matters such as human experimentation (remember the Nazi doctors?), war (cue: the Bomb) etc. You need an independent moral system for that; moral theology offers the solution.

moral theology like in Joshua?
Salem?
torquemada's spain?
isnt Bin Laden working under his moral theology?
Christ was killed because of the Priests moral theology.
the Crusades
the invasions of europe to spread Islam.
bet you could name 100 more if you tried.

Just because you like to think religion is morality reified ,doen't make id so. I wish it were but realism does have it's way of sneaking into idealistic thoughts.

Originally posted by frogstomp
moral theology like in Joshua?
Salem?
torquemada's spain?
isnt Bin Laden working under his moral theology?
Christ was killed because of the Priests moral theology.
the Crusades
the invasions of europe to spread Islam.
bet you could name 100 more if you tried.

Just because you like to think religion is mor ...[text shortened]... o. I wish it were but realism does have it's way of sneaking into idealistic thoughts.

That's irrelevant to the point I'm making - Science/Scientific Method is essentially a-moral/morally neutral. When it comes to science applied to normal human living, an external moral theory (such as moral theology) must be brought into play. Whether that moral theory is acceptable to society is a different matter altogether. Even if the moral theory is acceptable, its application may not be.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
That's irrelevant to the point I'm making - Science/Scientific Method is essentially a-moral/morally neutral. When it comes to science applied to normal human living, an external moral theory (such as moral theology) must be brought into play. Whether that moral theory is acceptable to society is a different matter altogether. Even if the moral theory is acceptable, its application may not be.

we aren't too far apart on this, science isnt ethics , that isn't the same as saying science doesnt have a usefulness in determining what makes us act the way we do. Psychology isnt an interest of mine but there was a docu I seen about how brain chemistry during times of emotional stress can cause real physiological symptoms. It was called "Love Hurts" and was quite interesting.

Lol science might come up with a "Loss Pill" that helps people forget that wandering spouse.

Originally posted by D43M0N
Hmm...now, I believe in Science. That's the way I am. I believe in evolution.

Now, Science has proved to me, and thousands of other people, that the species of dinosauria has existed. They died out, but they were here. Relation to Spirituallity - where are the dinosaurs in the Bible?

This is a very interesting post.

1) I noticed you capitalized "Science" the way I would capitalize God.
2) And you statement that you "believe in Science" is interesting because it is a religious type of statement.
3) I wonder how this entity "Science" proved that dinosaurs existed. I always thought of it in terms of simple logic:
* we have found some really big bones
* bones come from living creatures
* really big creatures have really big bones
* there are no living creatures with bones as big as the ones found
* therefore, there once lived some really big creatures
* so let's call them dinosaurs 😀

That's not science, that simple reasoning. Dig up a really big skeleton and one can reason it came from a really big animal. Duh! 😲

Since the term dinosaurs is newer then the Bible, then the tern dinosaurs won't be found in the Bible! Duh!! #2. 😲

But the bible does talk about leviathans - and those could be dinosaurs. (see Job 41:1) So we can not say that the Bible does not refer to what we now call dinosaurs.

One final note - I don't believe dinosaurs is a particular species.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
What every other animal? Maybe a handful of animals are mentioned in Genesis.

In any case, dinosaurs were not the first true animals. 😀

EDIT: But seriously, why would the Bible not mentioning dinosaurs be significant?

So, having a herd of Brachiosaurs happily munching on trees was not even noteworthy and then, after the flood, they were no more, and that was just par for the course.
Amazin!

Originally posted by KneverKnight
So, having a herd of Brachiosaurs happily munching on trees was not even noteworthy and then, after the flood, they were no more, and that was just par for the course.
Amazin!

As far as human morality is concerned, brachiosaurs are not particularly noteworthy, no.