|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Mon Nov 27, 2006 9:23 pm
sorry Blue, haven't been here in a while...
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 27, 2006 9:34 pm
Damaris Vincent sorry Blue, haven't been here in a while... Perfectly okay. If you want an in-depth discussion of evolution vs. creation, then we have all that and more here. Granted, it hasn't taken off the way the homosexuality thread has, but I keep hoping that'll change.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 27, 2006 9:37 pm
maybe I'll check it out later, I'm a bit tired to go into that kind of discussion right now. Thanks though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 28, 2006 4:15 pm
Tangled Up In Blue Damaris Vincent sorry Blue, haven't been here in a while... Perfectly okay. If you want an in-depth discussion of evolution vs. creation, then we have all that and more here. Granted, it hasn't taken off the way the homosexuality thread has, but I keep hoping that'll change. Not to be a spoil sport or anything i just dont get a lot of time to read so would you mind giving me the cliff notes version, and let me know what you came up with? or atleast what assumptions have been clarified.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 28, 2006 8:34 pm
Tangled Up In Blue Unless you see the laws of Nature not as subject to God's will but rather as extensions of it, that is. (God's will being synonymous with his nature here.) By that logic, miracles are not contraventions of Natural Law—God being unwilling, or some would say unable, to violate his own will/nature—but rather aspects of the universe that are currently, although not ultimately, beyond our ability to comprehend. In other words, they do not violate the laws of Nature, just our limited understanding of them. Apologies, by the way, for the odd capitalizations. I'm not trying to be pretentious; I'm just trying to make a clear distinction between two the different definitions of 'nature' that I'm using here. ::nod:: But if that was the case, again it wouldn't be an issue, or at least not as big of an issue. It's true that there's limited understanding involved, but there always is. We do the best with what we have. Oh please, capitalize strangely as much as you'd like, at least as long as it distinguishes the two terms (sure removes a lot of ambiguity).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 29, 2006 1:31 pm
Ok with this all being said, i am wondering how would you state this to somebody who thinks science explains all. For instance, I know a girl that thinks there is no God because most of the miracles can "be explained through science." What would be your argument to her keeping in mind that she has never opened a bible...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 29, 2006 3:48 pm
scotch0069 Ok with this all being said, i am wondering how would you state this to somebody who thinks science explains all. For instance, I know a girl that thinks there is no God because most of the miracles can "be explained through science." What would be your argument to her keeping in mind that she has never opened a bible... I would ask why science can take away belief? I would also ask how this has any bearing on the validity of the miracles. Yes, they can be explained through science. However, even if they can, science can't explain, especially in Laserus' (not sure on spelling, but most of you know who i'm talking about ) resurrection, why it happened at that exact moment and not another time. When Jesus healed, why did the person's body choose that moment to heal? If it's doing it on its own, why not sooner? When Laserus rose from the dead, why didn't he just rise on his own before Jesus saw him? So, while science does indeed offer an explanation to miracles, and even to Jesus' death on the cross (he actually choked on his own blood. It's close to Asphyxiation, but it has a different name. You can find more online), but that doesn't explain why these miracles needed Jesus to instigate them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jan 07, 2007 11:26 pm
They can absolutely co-exist. I mean. Didnt God create science afterall? Its when science comes up with a theory that contradicts the Bible, thats when you get a problem.
For Example. Scientists used to say we came from monkeys. (However probably about 95% of them no longer believe that.) But they now really are starting to believe we came from some sort of fish... in thier never ending quest to figure out what creature we came from.
However the Bible says that God created Adam, from the dust of the earth, and eve from one of adams ribs. God breathed life into adam through his "nostrils". (Not his gills...) God made man in his own image. (Gods not a fish). God tells man to rule over the "fish of the sea and the birds of the air" (Why would God make a fish, and then tell that fish to rule over the fish..)
I do however believe in Natural Selection. It dosnt contradict the Bible at all in my opinion. And I believe that other animals may have evolved no problem. Its human evolution that contradicts in my opinion.
This is an exmple of a Scientific theory that cannot co-exist with Christianity. However, real, truthfull science, that is rational from a christian is perspective perfectly ok. Otherwise the theory will never co-exist.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 08, 2007 8:48 pm
I hear your heart. Problem is, the idea of a past. Origins were too difficult to be explained in any other way, thus why most science is in theory. However, science should have it's boundaries...
Conclusion: Yes, they can co-exist... Problem is when they cross each other.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jan 16, 2007 6:00 pm
I am glad that im getting some responses due to the fact that this issue is now getting bigger by the second now that im taking a look out side my norm for example TIME magazine Nov 13 2006 had this very same debate and the articale was God Vs. Science. Now the Collins does a very good job of explaining the very same view we held here, but the issue is not with that but with the atheisitic side. Is it that they are to narrow minded to think that science can simply explain all. Or are we to narrow minded to see their side to help them see what we see and dismiss them as not saved so they dont understand. (very good article deserves a look through) also please state any other articles that pertain to this topic. Lets see how much media attention is being put out and lets see if we really are being represented or just being dimissed as religious freaks
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jan 16, 2007 6:03 pm
Master Protoman_exe I hear your heart. Problem is, the idea of a past. Origins were too difficult to be explained in any other way, thus why most science is in theory. However, science should have it's boundaries... Conclusion: Yes, they can co-exist... Problem is when they cross each other. So where is the grey area where they cross, cause if you break it down it ultimatly is a grey area, all would not exist if not for the big bang, (God saying let there be light?) or MICROEVOLUTION NOT MACRO.. because the DNA does evolve, in a sense. Then explain this to an atheist. The point is if broken down enough the core of science will lead back to the question is there a God, We know there is. But how do you explain this to a person who works in the laws of science.....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jan 16, 2007 6:06 pm
scotch0069 Master Protoman_exe I hear your heart. Problem is, the idea of a past. Origins were too difficult to be explained in any other way, thus why most science is in theory. However, science should have it's boundaries... Conclusion: Yes, they can co-exist... Problem is when they cross each other. So where is the grey area where they cross, cause if you break it down it ultimatly is a grey area, all would not exist if not for the big bang, (God saying let there be light?) or MICROEVOLUTION NOT MACRO.. because the DNA does evolve, in a sense. Then explain this to an atheist. The point is if broken down enough the core of science will lead back to the question is there a God, We know there is. But how do you explain this to a person who works in the laws of science..... (sorry if its seems like im picking on you... mrgreen )
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jan 20, 2007 2:02 pm
With out religion there wouldnt be science.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jan 24, 2007 7:19 pm
Yasuri Yamileth Wonderful how people thought the Bible said the Earth was plain and many other dumb stuff. The Bible and science, actually, are deeply related: -The Bible says the Earth is round. -The Bible talks about enthropy. -The Bible relates blood as important for life. -The Bible talks about the conservation of mass and energy. In short, a lot of those facts that are usually attributed to "human" science, have already been stated in the Bible. Regarding evolution, though, it's not the same. Microevolution (metamorphosis and that kind of stuff) is science: Macroevolution is not, as explained by Dr. Grady S. McMurtry.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jan 27, 2007 12:44 am
LRD_nick With out religion there wouldnt be science. Theology was once the "mother of all sciences", it's a pity it's been deposed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
