Contour Enthusiasts Group Archives Forums General Common Interests Southern Baptist leader slams Islam

Science is not a matter of "belief". Science is taking the available evidence and verifying its integrity; analyzing the evidence using the scientific method; and then having others repeat the same steps. A good scientist will tell you that the evidence supports a particular theory and will not proclaim "belief" as the sole criterion for holding a given view. A theist will most vapidly banter about the notion of "belief" without realizing that "belief" in and of itself does little to support a claim. The act of "believing" will not guarantee that a given claim more readily models the phenomonology of the cosmos than a hypothesis which has withstood the "trial by fire" of the scientific method.

I can tell you that I "believe" in the existence of ghostly subatomic particles known as neutrinos or I can present data that I collected from the Super-Kamiokande neutrino detector in Japan that suggests the existence of neutrinos. Draw your conclusions from there.

Maybe they were. But even the greats of the past could be mistaken. The self-correcting nature of science insures that many theories that were at one time held to be true were in fact erroneous. Does this invalidate the endeavor of science? Not by a long shot. It is the very self-correcting nature of science filters wheat from the chaff and the kernels of truth from nonsense of pseudoscience. If these great minds were alive with us in the beginning of the 21st century, there is no guarantee that they would still espouse the faith-inpired doctrine of the pseudoscience of creationism. It is likely that with a much wider understanding of the physical world we now possess, they would abandon many of notions which had been propped up by nothing more than "belief".

Let an evolutionist step into the fray. . .

So was Darwin, however, with all the evidence that he had collected he knew/thought that it was correct (another person coming up with the same theory in another country didn't hurt either)

I honestly think that the reverend didn't really take Jesus' turn the other cheek sermon very seriously. What about the "golden rule"? I honestly think that the New Testament is very good dogma (and is eerily similar to buddism). However, when used with the old testament presents a large amount of contradictions into the fold that confuse just about everyone and allow a good orator to justify just about any position that they want.
The same goes for the Koran, the passage about killing all infidels goes rather against the many passages about being hospitable to strangers and people of other beleifs.
Anyway as for the argument of science vs. religion, it will never be solved and can become very heated. A couple of months ago we had a very good debate about evolution that consumed a few of us. Anyway caution is warranted especially after the events of the last year.

Oh what a thread that was (14 pages)! I spent many hours writing on that thread... way too many hours. I, personally, thought we had a pretty good discussion, but we had a hard time keeping the focus on the topic. I am trying my best not to get into that again, but I am biting my lip so hard it is bleeding.

"I was refering to comments made earlier about evolution versus creation (I should have been more clear). Obviously you can only believe in one or the other, but noot both."

Why not I ask? What if evolution was merely how the creator created?

I will start by saying I am only talking about the proof of god that science may/may not be able to disprove, not all science, like chemistry and such.

Using the evolution vs. creation arguement there is one main reason;
The bible says we were created in God's form and placed here on earth and that we were never monkeys or any other creature,
whereas,
Science states man started a a primortial sludge of amino acids that evolved into ameoba's, then troglobites, prehistoric fish, land slugs, monkeys, and other stages before we ended up in our current form.
Do you see how the two don't really agree with each other?

I think that maybe the Bible wasnt meant to be interpreted literally....Just because we started as amoebas wouldnt make me stop believing that God created the whole natural process, and its all part of creation,,,,I know that in antiquity there was a habit of hiding secret knowledge in writings, ever since the egyptians and before. The old testament, according to the Kabbalists, is to be interpreted using other knowledge than just interpreting at face value...Its that strict interpretation of the bible that I cant get into..

According to fossil morphology and genetic studies, the progression is more likely to be

prokaryota->eukaryota->echinodermata->chordata->craniata->verbrata->gnathostomata-> sarcopterygii->amniota->synapsida->therapsida->mammalia->eutheria->primata->catarrhini->hominidae->Homo Sapiens

amebas (protista), troglobites [trilobites](arthropoda), terrestrial slugs (mullusca) do not fall in our path of ascendancy according to the aforementioned morphologic and genetic studies.

Not to criticize, but you should have payed a little more attention in your biology classes before choosing to highlight the shortcomings of evolutionary theory.

Thank you for the correction, sincerly.
Its been 5 years since I've taken biology.
But I do know that science states that we may have started as amino acid sludge and moved on to being an ameoba (a single celled organism).
The other creatures were to make a point.

As for interpreting the bible, how is it that you can take a passage from the bible, and then say; "even though it says this, what it really means is this."

Well, even the christian bible scholars are debating whether first days were each 24 hours or actually longer than that? Also, whether the universe is only 50,000 years old or older is also debated.

Then there is the whole mustard seed and how old testament should be handled..

And then finally you got Mormons. Are they a cult?