"I am the Alpha and the Omega..." ------------------ "We need a chicken butt." -- heypartner is moving swiftly to help make the CC.net BBS more efficient and run faster. RAM was the first step, apparently this is the second!
Read the nexts posts after that one RocketMan Tex. I admitted that I made a serious overstatement. But thanks for bringing it up again! ------------------ I am an invisible man. [This message has been edited by kbm (edited March 23, 2001).]
You said it... but more specifically, blind faith. ...not that there's anything wrong with that. ------------------ "We need a chicken butt." -- heypartner is moving swiftly to help make the CC.net BBS more efficient and run faster. RAM was the first step, apparently this is the second!
Since the original idea of this thread was to bash evolutionists in favor of creationists, I thought I would give ya'll some quotes by Darwin and try to show how he reconciled science and religion/faith. From "Origin of Species" "I see no good reason why the views given in this volume should shock the religious feelings of anyone. It is satisfactory, as showing how transient such impressions are, to remember that the greatest discovery ever made by man, namely, the law of the attraction of gravity, was also attacked by Liebnitz (German philosopher and mathematician, contemporary of Isaac Newton), "as subversive of natural, and inferentially of revealed, religion." A celebrated author and divine has written to me that "he has gradually learnt to see that it is just as noble a conception of the Deity to believe that He created a few original forms capable of self-development into other and needful forms, as to believe that He required a fresh act of creation to supply the voids caused by the action of His laws."" -------------------------------------------- While I don't necessarily agree with everything that Darwin wrote, especially when he writes how women are inferior, I think he makes a good point here. Since this was in my literature book and can therefore be interpreted in many ways I want to see what ya'll have to say. To me, I think this is saying that why can't faith and science go hand in hand? As for the beginnings of life and the Big Bang theory and the whole idea of creationism, that can't really ever be proven. What can be proven is that there is such a thing as evolution and that there is no reason why we should assume that humans are an exception to this theory. ------------------ Poopy!
Lets just face it. God is a mere projection of our own personal liking. You know, the great father is watching over us. He's carefully looking after our petty little things, telling us what to do and how we should do it. Sounds immature and childish to me. Religous texts were probably written by men who were mesmerized by their own thoughts. They carefully describe how to attain a goal and what God is. It's all conditioned into us and we pursue it. Thats our knowledge, it's what was learned to pursue. And what we seek we obviously find. And we call that reality, but is it? Our is it the projection of our own knowledge? ------------------ [This message has been edited by ROCKETBOOSTER (edited March 23, 2001).]
kbm, I understand what you're saying, but science is fallible, it never claims to be infallible. Science itself is composed of theorems, axioms, postulates, hypotheses, etc. that all basically say "this is how we believe it works until stated otherwise". Christianity (and other religions, of course) says "this is how it is"... period. There is no room for error. There is a God, there is a Jesus, there is a Heaven, there is a Hell... If science cannot prove its theories, the theories are debunked (several publications such as the American Medical Journal do this) and cast aside. Christianity makes no effort to prove itself (actually the existence of its God). It's strictly based upon faith. If Christianity cannot "prove" itself, why should anyone be expected to follow it? It refuses to allow itself to be under scrutiny simply because it cannot defend itself in any way other than faith. You cannot debate faith. You either have it or you don't. When the world was said to be flat, Copernicus said it wasn't. The round-earth theory ridiculed for so long now is accepted whereas the flat-earth theory once accepted is now ridiculed. Science admitted, then corrected an error. If I were to tell a devout Christian that there are errors in the Bible and the history of its creation, all I said may be ignored in favor of it being the "Word of God". And I really have no problem with that... once again, I can't debate faith. My problem is that if anyone claims that Christianity has come under scrutiny, it is its own fault. If someone cannot prove his beliefs, do not ask why others must take them as factual... those opinions will most assuredly be scrutinized. You say that most scrutiny of Christianity has been to disprove the existence of God. Consider the following : If you tell me He exists, I'll ask you to show me proof. If you cannot offer proof, I will say you have not proven his existence and I have no reason to believe you. This is not scrutiny, this is common sense. The other point you made is that if a theory is science is disproven, we do not renounce science. Of course not. That would be foolish. Why? Because theories in science are not necessarily dependent upon one another. Newton's classical laws may "fail" at relativistic speeds, but at classical velocities they hold true. Does this make them wrong? No. If I prove that the Theory of Evolution is wrong, does that mean theories regarding Quantum Dynamics are wrong? Nope. Why? Science is not a monolith of belief -- it is made up of thousands of parts. Christianity is based upon one fundamental belief (ok, maybe a couple more) : the existence of God. If you disprove the existence, you have disproven Christianity. You are treating this as science vs. Christianity and acting as if science is one body. It's not. ------------------ "We need a chicken butt." -- heypartner is moving swiftly to help make the CC.net BBS more efficient and run faster. RAM was the first step, apparently this is the second! [This message has been edited by Dr of Dunk (edited March 23, 2001).]
since no one seems to have seen my last post, all of you need to check out this book, you can read it online at http://www.witness-pioneer.org/vil/Books/MB_BQS/default.htm you can also purchase it from amazon.com anyway, it goes into detail about all this creation theory as seen in the bible, and why the biblical accounts are inconsistent with science. and if you are looking at a way of reconciling science/religion, check out http://www.it-is-truth.org although religion is based on faith, i think its important for us to objectively analyze the religion first. what good does it do us to have blind faith in something that doesnt make any sense? God created the world, but if "His" book is wrong about the creation of the world, then the book is obviously not the book of God! ------------------ http://members.fortunecity.com/omar369 [This message has been edited by jamma34 (edited March 23, 2001).]
That Book is what let you know God existed. If that Book is not the Word of God, then who is the God in that Book? A better way to put it : If you cannot trust the messenger, why should you believe the message? Again, my mind is open to believing in this, and this is not meant as a slam to Christianity. I'm just trying to let kbm know why I doubt and why I don't and can't blindly believe. ------------------ "We need a chicken butt." -- heypartner is moving swiftly to help make the CC.net BBS more efficient and run faster. RAM was the first step, apparently this is the second!
I just dont understand why one follows a religion, that if not forced upon others a couple of thousand years ago, would have never become nearly as popular---take the example of Christmas. I mean, a couple of little changes a thousand years ago and we could all be arguing whether or not Ghanghis Khan or someone else is really the son of God. Sicence, and thus evolution, does nto work that way. ------------------
DoD, Don't take this the wrong way, but science believes in the existence of atoms but you can't see one. You accept them based upon other proofs. The bible has many times over proven that it is an accurate account of history and that is one reason I believe in the existence of its God. ------------------ I am an invisible man. [This message has been edited by kbm (edited March 23, 2001).]
Bombs are pretty sigificant proof. The fact that we can split something suggest that it does, indeed, exist. ------------------ Whitey will pay.
