From the beginning!!!

Originally posted by galveston75
Well could you spare some then since you seem to have so much available? Lol

I have to say, that is a rather pathetic attempt at insulting me.

but is isn't surprising, coming from the likes of you.

Originally posted by Ullr
Great points!

You're right you can't prove a negative.

The Old Testament is the mythology and legends of the ancient people of Israel. It was written with their understanding of the universe and the world around them at the time. Genesis is their attempt to essentially explain existence based upon the knowledge in their posession at the time. It's no d ...[text shortened]... ue, etc." Thereby cutting off a chance for any real interesting discussion. Such a pity.

don't despair, there many of us Christians that have a broader view. I unquestioningly believe in God, and that God created the universe, how God did that is a mystery and I can't explain it. Science helps us to understand the Lord's creation, it doesn't undermine it.

Originally posted by generalissimo
I have to say, that is a rather pathetic attempt at insulting me.

but is isn't surprising, coming from the likes of you.

Well I thought it was funny...

Originally posted by duecer
don't despair, there many of us Christians that have a broader view. I unquestioningly believe in God, and that God created the universe, how God did that is a mystery and I can't explain it. Science helps us to understand the Lord's creation, it doesn't undermine it.

True science doesn't. But theories like evolution do as it tries to undermine the work that God has done in his creations.

Originally posted by galveston75
Lets see if some of us can agree on one thing?
Adam & Eve were created in the beginning in the Garden of Eden and would possibly still be alive today if they hadn't eaten of the tree of good and bad? Make sence?

Bere Shiit is the first phrase in the Bible. I don't think that it's a reference to excrement, though.

The tree, according to the ancient legend, was of the knowledge of good and evil. I think that Lilith (the vampire in the Garden, and Adam's first wife) was offering Eve a chance to look at an advance copy of Nietzsche's Beyond Good and Evil.

Predestination makes such things possible. Just ask Jean Calvin.

Originally posted by galveston75
True science doesn't. But theories like evolution do as it tries to undermine the work that God has done in his creations.

who determines what true science is? Galileo was called a heretic for his heliocentric theories, yet he was correct. Or do you believe that the world is flat?

Originally posted by duecer
who determines what true science is? Galileo was called a heretic for his heliocentric theories, yet he was correct. Or do you believe that the world is flat?

It's not????? Lol.
Since God created all things then any science that comes from man such as evolution can not be true if it contridicts the Bible. There is obviously much we don't understand about the universe and there is nothing wrong with questioning anything in it. But we have to keep God first and give him the honor that he created it all and hopefully someday we can find the answers we all want about thousands of things. I know I do.

Originally posted by duecer
don't despair, there many of us Christians that have a broader view. I unquestioningly believe in God, and that God created the universe, how God did that is a mystery and I can't explain it. Science helps us to understand the Lord's creation, it doesn't undermine it.

That's good to hear and I agree with your last sentence. Well put!

Originally posted by galveston75
Since God created all things then any science that comes from man such as evolution can not be true if it contridicts the Bible. There is obviously much we don't understand about the universe and there is nothing wrong with questioning anything in it. But we have to keep God first and give him the honor that he created it all and hopefully someday we can find the answers we all want about thousands of things. I know I do.

I am still waiting for you to explain why you said "".. it's up to science to prove it convencingly wrong" when you have stated over and over that you would never accept any such proof anyway.

Originally posted by karoly aczel
I'll take up the challenge..
1.If science 'evolves' enough, through quantum for example, the existence of God may be proved.You have to admit quantum is a fledgling science and the depths of it are not yet fully known. Not even close.
2.Depends on what you mean by 'praying'. I've heard acounts of yoga masters and the like suspending physical laws. Oc ...[text shortened]... es.

Very interesting angles here. Now just keep your minds open and see what happens...

Okay, let's have a go.

(1) You start with an "If science 'evolves' enough" and base a proposition of that. I can do the same: "If pigs could fly"...
I say that not even quantum physics can prove the existance of god. Nothing have shown any progess in this direction. We have to do quite a lot of redefinitions otherwise.

(2) Yes, I've heard it too. Like yoga master can levitate. Funny they cannot do it in front of cameras, or don't want it to be controlled by scientists.
If someone can build an anti-gravitational device, dependant of a praying preacher, then I will change my mind, but not before.

Religious people and science mind doesn't go hand in hand. Whenever a scientific breakthrough goes against the bible, the result is dismissed by the fundamentalists. (Evolution, remember?) So when fundamnetalists doesn't even care to learn about science but anyway have strong opinions, then I see clearly that the two cannot ever meet.

So, my thesis that religion and science ever mix, I'm confident I'm right. But whenever something comes up that contrapose this thesis, I'm happy to change my mind. It hasn't happened yet. 'When pigs can fly...'.

Originally posted by karoly aczel
2.Depends on what you mean by 'praying'. I've heard acounts of yoga masters and the like suspending physical laws. Occultists have claimed it numerous times.

Actually it depends on what you mean by 'physical laws'. The standard definition requires that they cannot be suspended by definition.
In science we try to investigate how the world works, and we declare something a 'physical law' if it always holds true. If it is found to not hold true in even one instance (when a yoga master does something, or a theist prays), then it is not a physical law, and we must either note the possible exceptions in the law, or scrap it from our list. It cannot however ever simultaneously be a physical law and be violated.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Okay, let's have a go.

(1) You start with an "If science 'evolves' enough" and base a proposition of that. I can do the same: "If pigs could fly"...
I say that not even quantum physics can prove the existance of god. Nothing have shown any progess in this direction. We have to do quite a lot of redefinitions otherwise.

(2) Yes, I've heard it too. ...[text shortened]... s, I'm happy to change my mind. It hasn't happened yet. 'When pigs can fly...'.

In my opinion Science and Religion are two different mental approaches of the Human on her/ his way to understanding. The Human is the agent who determines the aspects of the Religion just the way s/he likes, whilst this same Human uses Science in order to overcome her/ his ignorance.

Religion and Science can mix allright, because they are both related to the struggle of the Human to establish understanding. This is the reason why Religion confronts Science and Science confronts Religion: our theist friends refuse the scientific finds and evidence that reinforce their beliefs, they dismiss the ones that they do not cope with their religious views; however, at the same time they accept the scientific facts and evidence that they reinforce their miscellaneous religious beliefs
😵

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Okay, let's have a go.

(1) You start with an "If science 'evolves' enough" and base a proposition of that. I can do the same: "If pigs could fly"...
I say that not even quantum physics can prove the existance of god. Nothing have shown any progess in this direction. We have to do quite a lot of redefinitions otherwise.

(2) Yes, I've heard it too. ...[text shortened]... s, I'm happy to change my mind. It hasn't happened yet. 'When pigs can fly...'.

No religion😵

Originally posted by black beetle
In my opinion Science and Religion are two different mental approaches of the Human on her/ his way to understanding. The Human is the agent who determines the aspects of the Religion just the way s/he likes, whilst this same Human uses Science in order to overcome her/ his ignorance.

Religion and Science can mix allright, because they are both rel ...[text shortened]... the scientific facts and evidence that they reinforce their miscellaneous religious beliefs
😵

black beetle: "In my opinion Science and Religion are two different mental approaches of the Human on her/ his way to understanding. The Human is the agent who determines the aspects of the Religion just the way s/he likes, whilst this same Human uses Science in order to overcome her/ his ignorance."

Agree. Make sense.

black beetle: "Religion and Science can mix allright, because they are both related to the struggle of the Human to establish understanding."

But you cannot use science in a religious way, and you cannot use religion in a scientific way. The are simply not compatible.

As an exaple:
How do scientists do to establish knowledge? They do experiments, they use math as a tool, they test theories.
How do religious people to establish knowledge? They pray, they read old books, and they listen to the pope.
Do religious people do experiments? Math? Do they test theories? No, they don't.
Do scientists pray for knowledge? Do the read the bible to find truths? Do they listn to the pope? No they don't.
Therefore they cannot come to the same conclusion.
Is religion part of the scientific domain? No.
Is science a part of the religious domain? No.
So religion and cience never meet, they simply cannot mix!

Originally posted by galveston75
Well I thought it was funny...

you have a rather strange definition of "funny" then.