The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

wolfsbane

Scofflaw said:

It's not a difficult concept - local organisation is powered by an increase in general disorganisation. To do work, we turn complex chemicals (petroleum) into simpler chemicals (carbon dioxide and water). We can thereby make, for example, a building, which is organised. There's no mystery to it, and the overall slide of the Universe towards heat death is thereby hastened.

The difficult concept is that which sees the ascent coming from natural means. Intelligent design certainly makes things move toward vastly greater order and complexity. Already existing vast complexity and order causes ordered processes. But raw nature moves it just the opposite way. It is how one accounts for this intervention that poses the problem for materialist evolution.

Dave!

I still don't get how god can just exist yet the universe has to be created -- can you explain that to me?

Also what's the creationist line on the human appendix? What's its purpose and why did the creator put it there? And the bad structure of the human eye? There's a tonne of examples of poor design, why did god do this?

I'm also curious -- in recorded history, we can see how different cultures and civilisations have applied divine qualities to things that they don't understand. There are gods of water, wind, fire, the sun, the moon, mist, sickness, thunder, the stars, earthquakes, and so on and so forth. These gods are no longer worshipped for the most part (some exceptions) because they're not mysterious anymore, it doesn't make sense anymore to worship a ball of gases.
We've demystified these phenomena, and the main problem we have left is we don't know what started it all, where it all came from, etc.
Do you not see the pattern: something isn't understood, so it is worshipped. It is explained, and for the most part it stops being worshipped.
The existance of the universe is currently unexplained, and that is essentially god's main work -- creating the universe. Can you not see how the need to understand something is so great that a deity is applied to it? And once that thing is understood, the deity is no longer needed.

If we understood where the universe came from, then there'd be no need for your god!

That's my main boggle.

BrianCalgary wrote:

So why should I listen to you lot speculating on the beginning of the universe that you can't prove happened when I can rely on the testiomony of millions who have experienced and met the living God who wrote the book on it?

Because there is no observable evidence that he exists! Lots of hillbillies in Texas have swore that they've seen aliens, that doesn't mean I should believe them.

Son Goku

BrianCalgary wrote:

The point being, you guys have been arguing for over 3,000 posts that science is the answer to all of our questions, given time. You have argued that the Big Bang is a fact and that it the method by which the universe began.

All our questions? No. Scientific ones, yes. I still don't think you grasp what Science is actually about.
The Big Bang is the best model that most accuratly fits the data. It is also a gross feature of any geometric theory of gravity, for me that is enough for me to place my confidence in it.

It is also not the method by which the universe began. The Big Bang is a theory of the early universe, not a theory of its creation. Indeed the problem with early cosmology is that the universe becomes atemporal.

On a little check of the topic I fine scientists that have probably written peer review papers and the such stste plainly that the Big Bang is nothing but a theory that can never be proven.

Brian this is the single laziest, most-oft repeated Creationist response ever. No Scientific theory can ever be proven. That is the nature of science.

Science therefore can not answer the question of how we got here.

You don't support your reasoning for this.

It is nothing but speculation

"It is nothing but speculation"? Again this comes from nowhere and goes to nowhere. General Relativity is founded on a solid bed of experimentation. A gross feature of General Relativity is a Big Bang Cosmology. That is not just speculation.
Also it predicts things about the universe that we observe.

We have two facts here:
1. Science is tentative.
2. That it cannot address the metaphysical.

From this you conclude that it is all nothing but speculation, how so?
What particular aspects of the last 80 years of work in gravitational theory do you find dubious?

BrianCalgary wrote:

So why should I listen to you lot speculating on the beginning of the universe that you can't prove happened when I can rely on the testiomony of millions who have experienced and met the living God who wrote the book on it?

Brian we don't want you to stop believing in God. You must remember, and this seems to be the hardest point to get across, that science is not an alternative religion.

The Big Bang fits the data, that is the only thing that comes into it.
Science is no more anti-Christian than it is anti-Shinto.

For instance I've heard a lot of arguements here, but I've yet to be shown how the Big Bang doesn't match evidence.

Can you give me a piece of evidence that it doesn't explain?
Give me something which matches an equivalent amount of observational data.

Arguing Science is not like your standard polemical debate. If you have no alternative to offer and the current alternative matches evidence, then you have no case.

BrianCalgary

DaveMcG wrote:

I still don't get how god can just exist yet the universe has to be created -- can you explain that to me?.

I don't know all there is about God, His eternity boggles my mind. The universe is so complex and ordered that it has to have a creator.

DaveMcG wrote:

Also what's the creationist line on the human appendix? What's its purpose and why did the creator put it there? And the bad structure of the human eye? There's a tonne of examples of poor design, why did god do this??.

I believe that the appendix does have a purpose. Science claimed it had no purpose at one point in my lifetime.

DaveMcG wrote:

I'm also curious -- in recorded history, we can see how different cultures and civilisations have applied divine qualities to things that they don't understand. There are gods of water, wind, fire, the sun, the moon, mist, sickness, thunder, the stars, earthquakes, and so on and so forth. These gods are no longer worshipped for the most part (some exceptions) because they're not mysterious anymore, it doesn't make sense anymore to worship a ball of gases.
We've demystified these phenomena, and the main problem we have left is we don't know what started it all, where it all came from, etc.
Do you not see the pattern: something isn't understood, so it is worshipped. It is explained, and for the most part it stops being worshipped.
The existance of the universe is currently unexplained, and that is essentially god's main work -- creating the universe. Can you not see how the need to understand something is so great that a deity is applied to it? And once that thing is understood, the deity is no longer needed..

Not really. I see today people searching for 'something;, they put their faith in the power of crystals. Although the crystal has no power. They put their faith in astrologers and tarot readers.

Religion as about putting your trust in someone or something and then worshipping it. In the cultures you describe people understood that the sun (an example) had powers (it did: heat and light) and put a god to it and then worshipped that god.We now say it was ridiculous. No more ridiculous that trusting in a crystal or a deck of cards.

DaveMcG wrote:

If we understood where the universe came from, then there'd be no need for your god!

That's my main boggle.



Because there is no observable evidence that he exists! Lots of hillbillies in Texas have swore that they've seen aliens, that doesn't mean I should believe them.

We do understand where the universe came from: God

JimiTime

Not really looking for a response to this but here I go.

When I see the trees and the birds that dwell within, singing their morning song. I thank The Father for my senses and the wonderful abundance they enjoy. Why do the goosebumps rise on the sight of a vast expanse of water clattering against a beaten cliffedge.
As the sun shines, provoking my face to smile, knowing that a little closer or further means a lifeless earth. The heavenly bodies while essential for life, their beauty takes my breath away. I pray the day your power will overawe the earth once again, the earth as you originally intended it. All glory to you sovreign of the universe. let your name be sanctified and your Kingdom come. Amen.

To the non-believers of the thread. We have our evidence of creation every day and night. Every time we look in the mirror, or see an orchid bloom. Science will spend all its life looking for an answer that has been there for millenia. I pray you find it soon.

Son Goku

J C wrote:

The Big Bang, as a materialistic explanation, ISN’T an adequate or complete explanation – as it begs the questions of what caused it – and where did all of the matter and energy supposedly released by it come from?

Science is not a story. Just because you don't find out what happened at the very beginning is no reason to dismiss the entire framework.

I can't believe I have to explain science 101 to somebody who is qualified in areas which are "numerous and varied".

Son Goku

JimiTime wrote:

To the non-believers of the thread. We have our evidence of creation every day and night. Every time we look in the mirror, or see an orchid bloom.

That's what you see. I see a mirror and an orchid blooming.

JimiTime wrote:

Science will spend all its life looking for an answer that has been there for millenia. I pray you find it soon.

Science wants to explain how things work. Do not criticise it for not answering questions you feel it should address. It has answered countless questions you don't even know exist.

JimiTime

Son Goku wrote:

Science wants to explain how things work. Do not criticise it for not answering questions you feel it should address. It has answered countless questions you don't even know exist.

And well done to the people who did answer the questions you speak of. I didn't criticise it I am more saddened that science has become a god for many. God and science can be side by side, its just science has gone beyond itself and placed itself as a religion. And just like religion, it will stumble many.

Son Goku

JimiTime wrote:

God and science can be side by side, its just science has gone beyond itself and placed itself as a religion. And just like religion, it will stumble many.

It has? Where has science gone beyond itself and placed itself as a religion?

An example would help me understand your point.

Scofflaw

BrianCalgary wrote:

Sure there is reason to study science. We are curious as to how things work. The problem with science is they assume that there is no God affecting the universe and attempt to explain everything outside of Him.

To only hear a scientist say: God created _________ in a way that it does _________.

Just rewind 100-150 years, and Bob's your uncle. Science kicked off in the West because of the belief that God was a rational Creator - didn't just make stuff up willy-nilly. All of you Creationists are heirs to that tradition - that's why you try to explain the Creation in scientific ways.

Unfortunately, as we've said before, the mismatch between what science found to be the case, and what the Bible describes, grew so hopelessly large that scientists, no matter how Christian, were forced to choose between science and Biblical literalism.

Note that, whatever is pretended here by our Creationist colleagues, that choice was not between science and Christianity - just between science and the literal interpretation of all of Genesis. The vast majority of Christians have little difficulty reconciling science and faith.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

wolfsbane wrote:

Our interpretation of Scripture is based not on making it say what we want, but seeing what it says in both the text under consideration and the context, and then comparing text with text so that there is a consistent meaning.

Absolutely not the case. You entirely ignore the fact that you also look at the world, and determine what it is necessary for the Bible to say - that is, how the Biblocal passage can be tied into the world around us.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

wolfsbane wrote:

Scofflaw wrote:

It's not a difficult concept - local organisation is powered by an increase in general disorganisation. To do work, we turn complex chemicals (petroleum) into simpler chemicals (carbon dioxide and water). We can thereby make, for example, a building, which is organised. There's no mystery to it, and the overall slide of the Universe towards heat death is thereby hastened.

The difficult concept is that which sees the ascent coming from natural means. Intelligent design certainly makes things move toward vastly greater order and complexity. Already existing vast complexity and order causes ordered processes. But raw nature moves it just the opposite way. It is how one accounts for this intervention that poses the problem for materialist evolution.

Alas, you completely fail to see the contradiction between what you claim ("raw nature moves it just the opposite way") and what is observed - that for example, sugar or salt crystallises out of solution - the less ordered becoming more ordered.

There is nothing that materialist evolution needs to account for when we can observe in the kitchen that what you say is so obviously false. The question is, why do you cling to this clearly ridiculous notion, which a seven-year-old can demonstrate to be untrue? Is there a reason why you need it to be true, perhaps?

cordially,
Scofflaw

robindch

Wolfsbane -

I note that you haven't had time to reply to my post, which I'm posting again here, lest it disappear beneath the frantic waving. Brian, you're more than welcome to offer an opinion on JC's posting's too.

========================================

> [wolfsbane] I've 'opted out' primarily because JC was best qualified to do to as he is
> doing, spanking evolutionist ass and pointing them in the right direction.

Out of interest, in reading JC's replies (which I assume you do from time to time), does JC come across to you as somebody with a firm grasp of techincal detail, a talent for clear and unambiguous writing and a willingness to answer questions honestly and completely?

Zombrex

J C wrote:

Then, why are the Evolutionists fighting ‘tooth and nail’ to ban the mere mention of Intelligent Design in the schools of America – on the grounds that it promotes a ‘religious worldview’??

It aren't. Most people who are against ID being taught in school science rooms are Christians, who quite like their "religoius worldview".

Despite what you and wolfbane believe there is no some great atheist conspiricy in scientific circles to just get at religion.

The reason why people are fighting to keep ID out of the class room is because it isn't science

In America you can't just demand that something that isn't science be taught in a science class room just because you mistakenly believe it supports your wacky religious viewpoint. That is against the constitution, and the princple of seperation of church and state.

If it isn't science it isn't science

J C wrote:

I actually accept, and I have previously pointed out, that ID is ‘neutral’ on the identity of the Designer.

Not really.

If one assumes their was a designer, the nature of the design can tell a lot about the nature of the designer. And the nature of the design of life on Earth tells us that

a) The designer was not able to produce perfect designs
b) The designer was not able to forsee or predict the future.

This limites the possible designers, and rules out God as one.

J C wrote:

Creationists will never 'drop' the concept of Intelligent Design – which is a very important proof of Direct Divine Creation.

Its not. You just said its not!

You just said ID is neutral on the identifty of the designer. It doeesn't proof Direct Divine Creation at all. It could just have easily not been a god, and the nature of the design supports it not being a god more than it supports it being a god.

You just said that like two sentences ago :rolleyes:

J C wrote:

However, Creationists accept that alternative interpretations for ID including, the belief in ET Aliens as the ‘designers’ do exist.

So you recongise that ID isn't proof of divine creation at all, and is in fact strong evidence against the idea of divine creation.

Now we are getting somewhere.

J C wrote:

How?

Well for a start changing the chemicals used in neurons. More efficent chemicals could be used instead.

But then the goal of natural selection and evolution wasn't to be perfect, it was simply to work. And an ants brain works just fine. It isn't perfect, but then that doesn't really matter. Except if you are claiming it had a perfect designer, which it clearly didn't

J C wrote:

Respiration and photosynthesis cascades work at almost 100% energy efficiencies!!!!

Groan .. I guess we have discovered another thing JC knows nothing about

Photosynthesis uses approx 3%-6% of the available solar energy converted into bioenergy. Scientist believe that the actual process of photosynthesis has a theoretical limit of 11% efficency.

So plants don't even use the full efficency of their own process, let alone a different process that could yeld far more efficent results.

Life is not perfecly efficent JC. That is a simple fact. Life does enough to get by.

This rules out a perfect designer (why would a perfect designer design an imperfect system?)

Its almost as if life was designed by a natural process such as natural selection :eek:

J C wrote:

It was Lazare who proffered the often-quoted Evolutionist idea that the odds of life spontaneously appearing are akin to winning the National Lottery every night for a hundred years.

Actually you posted this on page 1 of this thread

J C wrote:

With odds in excess of 10 to the power of 1,800,000,000 against the production of the nucleic acid sequence of the Human Genome by accident – how do you explain it’s existence using random chance Evolution when the number of electrons in the known universe are only 10 to the power of 82?

There is no such theory as "random chance Evolution" .. you were lying about the nature of neo-darwin evolution theory from the start :rolleyes:

J C wrote:

I never mentioned a word about proteins

J C wrote:

the odds of producing the amino acid sequence for a particular 100 chain protein by accident choosing from the 20 common amino acids at each point on the chain is 10 to the power of minus 130. If we consider that the number of atoms in the known Universe (including Dark Matter) is 10 to the power of 80 I don't fancy the chances of even a useful protein arising spontaneously

You seem to not be able to even remember exactly what you were lying about

robindch

> It has? Where has science gone beyond itself and placed itself as a religion?

Well, to somebody whose worldview is controlled by one religion or another, anything which suggests that the religion might be inaccurate must, de facto, be a religion itself. The fact that reason is an epistemological, rather than memetic, displacer of religion is merrily ignored. Many religious people seem to be unable to distinguish the two orders of information anyway.

I doubt you'll get an answer to the question, by the way. Our religious confreres have a tiresome habit of never answering questions they don't like.

JimiTime

Son Goku wrote:

That's what you see. I see a mirror and an orchid blooming.

I'm Sorry to hear that, I pray that one day you too will experience these things with open eyes.

Son Goku wrote:

Where has science gone beyond itself and placed itself as a religion?
An example would help me understand your point.

The very fact that you are in a Christian forum trying to tell us that we have it all wrong would be the most obvious one!

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote:

As to making it up, as the above quote indicates, we are merely telling it as Scripture tells it.

You are not.

You are interpreting the literal discriptions of the scripture as having certain meanings (the crushing of the snake = the crushing of satan) that are not actually found in the books themselves.

Unless you want to pick out the passage in Genesis that says the snake is the devil? If the snake represented the devil then what was the point of this line

And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers;

All the Bible is doing here is describing why snakes attack humans, and vice versa. All the mumbo jumbo about this representing Satan and Good and Evil was invented long after. Genesis doesn't even describe the snake as evil, simply as being "crafty"

wolfsbane wrote:

The use of already existing material seems the only consistent understanding. Just as the snake was altered, so were the plants that became weeds.

Again it doesn't say that in the Bible.

Nothing changed after the Fall except for Humans and snakes.

Originally in the garden of Eden God made the plants grow for Adam by providing water for them.


When the LORD God made the earth and the heavens- and no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth and no plant of the field had yet sprung up, for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth
...
Now the LORD God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed. And the LORD God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground—trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food


God worked the land for Adam (its not hard, he is a god after all).

But after the Fall God refused to do this any more as punishment. Adam would have to work for his food, God would not work it for him -

By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the ground,

None of the plants or animals were altered AT ALL The only things that were altered where Adam, Eve and the snake.

All the happened after the Fall was that God refused to provide for Adam any more. And since that day God has not provided for us, we have had to provide for ourselfs.

No forms of life apart from Humans were degraded from the Fall according to the Bible.

wolfsbane wrote:

And of course, man himself was altered, being subject to sickness and death.

And woman and snakes. That is it. The plants were already subject to death (otherwise Adam could not eat them) and sickness (otherwise there would be no need to work the garden)

wolfsbane wrote:

Our interpretation of Scripture is based not on making it say what we want

Then why are you and JC claiming that the imprefections found in all life were caused by The Fall of Man (to give it it's full title), when the Bible clearly does not state that?

And don't get me started on JC's theory that the land masses rose up up to 7km during the flood because of the passage -

on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth

You both insert into the Bible passages things that are clearly not there, because you are both struggling (and failing) to fit the Genesis account around modern day knowledge and science.

wolfsbane wrote:

If the processes we now see around us is what very good means, then indeed we would have a problem. But that is not the picture we get from Scripture.

Groan

You are starting from the wrong way around.

God made things perfect, things aren't perfect, therefore an undocumented change to all life must have happened at some point ...

Of course the more rational logical argument is this

God would make things perfect. Things aren't perfect. God didn't make them

You are ignoring the most rational explination and instead are inserting a made up undocumented event (the Bible clearly states what the Fall of Man did and did not do, so it wasn't that) to attempt to explain way the problem.

wolfsbane wrote:

The absence of death, sickness and weeds was the creation state.

Not according to the Bible.

Not only were trees produced for food (eating something kills it I think we will both agree), but Adam was commanded to work the garden of Eden.

Working a garden involves killing plants and weeds.

wolfsbane wrote:

It is your ignorance of what the Bible actually says that is the problem.

Well I actually read the Bible so I seem to have a head start on yourself and JC. I'll give you a few moments to go back and actually read Genesis.

Son Goku

JimiTime wrote:

I'm Sorry to hear that, I pray that one day you too will experience these things with open eyes.

Can an orchid not be beautiful independant of an infinitely powerful creator? It is a nice flower, e.t.c. I don't understand why I need to see it as evidence of the divine.

Face it people see things differently to you and they are not to be pitied for it.

JimiTime wrote:

The very fact that you are in a Christian forum trying to tell us that we have it all wrong would be the most obvious one!

Another non-answer, exactly as robindch predicted.

For the 80 millionth time, believe in God if you want. I am only here to debate JC & cos assertion that evolution and the Big Bang do not match evidence.

So again where has science gone beyond itself and placed itself as a religion?

(Also you response is poor by any standards, I am not science, so even ignoring the fact that it dodges the issue, it still makes no sense.)

Zombrex

BrianCalgary wrote:

The point being, you guys have been arguing for over 3,000 posts that science is the answer to all of our questions, given time.

No, we have been arguing that science is the only way to attempt to get answers. Religion doesn't provide any real answers. You have to believe in the religion in the first place.

A christian scientists and a muslim scientist can view the same answer if it is provided by science because science is universal. It is logic and reasoning.

On the other hand present a christian "truth" and the Muslim will just say "So?"

Religion provides nothing. It provides no logic, no reason, no justification to convince anyone that it is correct. You are just supposed to accept that such and such holy book is correct. When asked why are supposed to accept that the answer is "well the spirit of my god will tell you it is true in your mind"

I mean its absurd to structure our understanding of the world around these ideas. Every scientist would have to take a class in how to get God to inform you that the Bible is correct.

BrianCalgary wrote:

On a little check of the topic I fine scientists that have probably written peer review papers and the such stste plainly that the Big Bang is nothing but a theory that can never be proven.

The Big Bang is a theory (I'm not sure what you mean by "nothing but") and can never be proven, unless you want to go all the way back to the start of time and observe it happen.

The question isn't if it can be proven or not. The question is if it works

The big bang works as a theory much better than most of the other theories.

Theories from the Bible don't work. At all

You can't build a mathematical model to predict background x-ray radiation based on the theory "God made the world in six days"

In fact if you do base your maths and your observations of background x-ray radiation on this "theory" nothing works Your equations are jibberish.

That is why science rejects the descriptions of the Bible.

Not because they have something against religion, its because people discovered (a whlie ago) that if you base your models of the universe on the Genesis accounts nothing works. The models collapse completely into one string of absurd maths after another.

The Big Bang theory is accepted over the Genesis "theory" simply because the Big Bang theory works and explains the functioning of other theories, where as the Genesis theory doesn't at all, it just makes an ungoddly (excuse the pun) mess of jibberish when you apply it in any form

It is therefore very unlikely that Genesis "theory" is the correct theory to go for.

BrianCalgary wrote:

Science therefore can not answer the question of how we got here. It is nothing but speculation that does not include the existence of a transcendant God.

The existence of a transcendant God is nothing but speculation, so I fail to see your point.

Scientists will speculate about what happened before the Big Bang but they recongise that this is only speculation.

BrianCalgary wrote:

So why should I listen to you lot speculating on the beginning of the universe that you can't prove happened when I can rely on the testiomony of millions who have experienced and met the living God who wrote the book on it?

Because our ideas lead to a model of the universe that works properly, where as yours lead to a model of the universe that doesn't work at all and dissolves into a mess of nonsense.

So the ultimate question is if you give a cr@p?

Is your aim to better understand how the universe works, and therefore you would be more interested in models that work properly than religious dogma or descriptions in holy books.

Or is your aim to focus on your religious dogma, and therefore you wouldn't be interested at all in models of the universe in the first place.

Most religious fundamentalists (those who believe in a literal interpretation of a specific holy book) don't care to much about correct and accurate modeling of the universe since most don't attempt to model the universe in the first place. You reject the Big Bang theory not because it is a bad theory, or because it doesn't work well, but because it conflicts with your religous dogma, which is more important to you that correct and accurate modeling of the universe.

I've nothing against that, until they move into the realm of science.

Expecting that science just out right accept models that simply do not work is being very unreasonable, when the goal of science is to work closer and closer to models that do work and disgard those that don't

Its not sciences fault your models don't work. If you are happy they don't work that is fine, but you should not except that science will take them on just because.

JimiTime

Son Goku wrote:

Can an orchid not be beautiful independant of an infinitely powerful creator? It is a nice flower, e.t.c. I don't understand why I need to see it as evidence of the divine.

Face it people see things differently to you and they are not to be pitied for it.


Another non-answer, exactly as robindch predicted.

For the 80 millionth time, believe in God if you want. I am only here to debate JC & cos assertion that evolution and the Big Bang do not match evidence.

So again where has science gone beyond itself and placed itself as a religion?

Science is vast. It is made up of its people who don't agree on everything. Science has tried to explain the great flood, taking out the creator. It has tried to explain the plagues of Egypt, taking out the creator. It tries to explain creation, taking out the creator. Now if it tries to assertain these things and encourages people away from the spiritual, it replaces the spiritual. Religion is not something I believe in, it is a great stumbler also and I will lump the kind of science I have mentioned as having the same effect. I have talked to many who actually say 'I believe in Science', as if science is an entity of its own. I do understand that this may not be how you and many others see it, but this is what it has become to many, so un-intentionally, it has become a religion to many.

Son Goku wrote:

(Also you response is poor by any standards, I am not science, so even ignoring the fact that it dodges the issue, it still makes no sense.

Your disrespectful haughtiness has no place with me. You are representing science, but of course if you weren't just looking to argue you would have known what I meant. Wisdom is the application of knowledge, maybe you should consider how yours is applied.

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote:

The very fact that you are in a Christian forum trying to tell us that we have it all wrong would be the most obvious one!

Actually you have that the wrong way around.

Religion is demanding that science take some of its theories (based on a literal Bible for example) seriously. You can see this in the creation science movements, and in most of the posts here.

Science is simply saying "No. None of your theories work, why on earth would we take them seriously?"

It is religion that has a problem with that. It has always had a problem with that, from the time when it burning scientists in the middle ages, to the Kansas school board trying to get evolution out of the science class room.

Science would love for religion to just back off and stay the hell away from it to be honest.

JimiTime

JimiTime wrote:

Science is vast. It is made up of its people who don't agree on everything. Science has tried to explain the great flood, taking out the creator.

Wait, some of the posts here state that there wasn't even a great flood at all, never mind explaining it without a creator...

It has tried to explain the plagues of Egypt, taking out the creator.

Are you insisting that all plagues have non natural origins??

It tries to explain creation, taking out the creator. Now if it tries to assertain these things and encourages people away from the spiritual, it replaces the spiritual.

It doesn't replace the spiritual, it just doesnt deal with the spiritual because it has no way of doing so by testing verifying etc

Religion is not something I believe in, it is a great stumbler also and I will lump the kind of science I have mentioned as having the same effect. I have talked to many who actually say 'I believe in Science', as if science is an entity of its own. I do understand that this may not be how you and many others see it, but this is what it has become to many, so un-intentionally, it has become a religion to many.

That's their problem, not science's...

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote:

Now if it tries to assertain these things and encourages people away from the spiritual, it replaces the spiritual.

Thats not true. Science is indifferent to religion. It is religion that has the problem with science.

What happens is this

Science says "We think that this is the way X works"

Religion then goes "Ummm, well my holy book says that isn't what happened"

Science's response is "I don't care, thats not my problem"

If religious people don't like what science discovers that is not an issue for science. If religions want to reject the findings of science thats fine. But they should not try to change them, or demand that science change them. Science is what it is. If you can't accept that that is your problem

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote:

Actually you have that the wrong way around.

Religion is demanding that science take some of its theories (based on a literal Bible for example) seriously. You can see this in the creation science movements, and in most of the posts here.

Science is simply saying "No. None of your theories work, why on earth would we take them seriously?"

It is religion that has a problem with that. It has always had a problem with that, from the time when it burning scientists in the middle ages, to the Kansas school board trying to get evolution out of the science class room.

Science would love for religion to just back off and stay the hell away from it to be honest.

Once again, Religion is not faith. Religion is control of the minions. it does not seek truth. I am anti-religion. You do not need to clarify its stupidity and dogma with me. Religion numbs the brain, stops independant thought. I am not on religions side. I am on our Creators side. Logic is logic is logic. I just haven't seen feesable logic to have me question my faith.

I would love religion to stay out of sciences way also. It usually ends up embarrassing itself.

robindch

> Wisdom is the application of knowledge, maybe you should consider how
> yours is applied. [...] Your disrespectful haughtiness has no place with me.

Hmmm...

JimiTime

JimiTime wrote:

Once again, Religion is not faith. Religion is control of the minions. it does not seek truth. I am anti-religion. You do not need to clarify its stupidity and dogma with me. Religion numbs the brain, stops independant thought. I am not on religions side. I am on our Creators side. Logic is logic is logic. I just haven't seen feesable logic to have me question my faith.

Oh dear, an angstheist...

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote:

I just haven't seen feesable logic to have me question my faith.

Ok ...

What areas of your "faith" conflict with current scientific modeling of the universe?

Son Goku

Science is vast. It is made up of its people who don't agree on everything. Science has tried to explain the great flood, taking out the creator. It has tried to explain the plagues of Egypt, taking out the creator. It tries to explain creation, taking out the creator. Now if it tries to assertain these things and encourages people away from the spiritual, it replaces the spiritual. Religion is not something I believe in, it is a great stumbler also and I will lump the kind of science I have mentioned as having the same effect. I have talked to many who actually say 'I believe in Science', as if science is an entity of its own. I do understand that this may not be how you and many others see it, but this is what it has become to many, so un-intentionally, it has become a religion to many.

That is all I wanted, not pity and a non-answer.
Also there is no evidence of the global flood and the plagues in Egypt, so I don't understand what you are talking about.
And as Wicknight said "Science is indifferent to religion".

JimiTime wrote:

Your disrespectful haughtiness has no place with me. You are representing science, but of course if you weren't just looking to argue you would have known what I meant. Wisdom is the application of knowledge, maybe you should consider how yours is applied.

My "haughtiness" comes from the fact that none of us ever get a straight answer. All we get are posts which dodge the issue, are outright nonsensical or include some "life lesson" such as "I pray that one day you too will experience these things with open eyes".
You have even done it again, giving me "maybe you should consider how yours is applied". Another statement that is irrelevant to the debate.

If you had answered the question in the first place you wouldn't have gotten such response and the simple fact is you didn't answer the question.
Even in your above response you have created false issues for science to deal with such as the plagues of egypt and a recent global flood.

JimiTime

Son Goku wrote:

T
My "haughtiness" comes from the fact that none of us ever get a straight answer. All we get are posts which dodge the issue, are outright nonsensical or include some "life lesson" such as "I pray that one day you too will experience these things with open eyes".

Point duly noted. It is a bit condesending and holyer than though, my apologies. It is something I feel however, but I agree it should not be expressed in the context it has been. It should be carried out in the privacy of my own mind. Well what do you know, this conversation has thought me something:)

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote:

Ok ...

What areas of your "faith" conflict with current scientific modeling of the universe?

Adam and Eve.