Religion and science are incompatible (philosopher, scrutiny, about, different)

[Campbell34]

Originally Posted by arod0331

I can't imagine how far advances in science could be today if religious views hadn't slowed the process several times.

It was often the religious who were on the cutting edge of science, a fact that is often not reported.

[Campbell34]

Originally Posted by GCSTroop

Campbell, do you have any other place other than Christian propaganda websites stating this? Do you think that for once you could provide a National Geographic article or Scientific American article backing your statements up? Do you really think you're going to convince me with websites of places that have done no scientific research and to me are basically the perfect analogy that a crack dealer is to the scientific world?

And, no, you have no idea what you're talking about. It's clear in that I've caught you copying and pasting directly from other sites before and now you just run little snippets from other websites that you favor. Not even a genuine thought behind what you think you know. It's pretty sad...

In the March 1996 issue of National Geographic Donald Johanson himself admitted that Lucy recently had been dethroned. Hope National Geographic is not to Christian for you.

[GCSTroop]

Originally Posted by Campbell34

In the March 1996 issue of National Geographic Donald Johanson himself admitted that Lucy recently had been dethroned. Hope National Geographic is not to Christian for you.

Link? And why do I have the feeling that he's talking about another great paleo-anthropologic find and not that Lucy was debunked? Debunked and dethroned are different words, Campbell.

[Preterist]

Originally Posted by esselcue

It depends totally on the religion one is comparing science to. If you are a devout, fundamentalist Christian, then science has no play in your beliefs...but if you have an open mind, or if you happen to be a Buddhist, you will be open to original thought. The Dalai Lama himself (I heard him say it!) states that when science provides the information which contradicts Buddhist teachings, then the Buddhists will alter their teachings. It all has to do with individual thoughts, intelligence, curiosity and an open or closed mind.

esselcue: I am not sure what you mean by fundamentalist--that word has been given very negative connotations over the years. That said, I will call myself a devout biblical Christian who believes very much that science has a role in my beliefs. Your blanket statement against Christians is not at all accurate. You make such a statement because YOU have determined that bibical Christianity and science are at odds.

Perhaps Buddhism might have to adjust its teachings, but biblical Christianity will not. The Bible and true and accurate science are not at odds. The Bible and biblical Christianity are at odds with your pseudo-science!

Preterist

[Preterist]

Originally Posted by arod0331

I can't imagine how far advances in science could be today if religious views hadn't slowed the process several times.

Thank God!

Preterist

[Simple Living]

Originally Posted by Preterist

Thank God!

Preterist

LOL. It's true....

[alicenevada]

Originally Posted by Cirbryn

Alice, your prior posts have indicated you don't believe a population of one species can change into a new species. But now you're talking about birds and reptiles, which are classes. Have you changed your mind and now think new species can evolve but not new classes?

Um, since species is loosely defined as a group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producting fertile offspring, I meant exactly what I said. Perhaps I could have been more detailed but I think most people on these boards know that I make it a point to be as succinct as possible.

[esselcue]

Preterist: Pseudo science? That on earth is that? Didn't mean to offend you with the word Fundamentalist and I apologize for that, however I still hold the contention that many Christians refuse to acknowledge many scientific proofs because to admit that such things as an earth that is millions of years old threatens their beliefs (just an example here.)

And it shouldn't threaten them at all! What difference does it make if God created the earth is six days or sixty million years? Or if He created we humans by evolution and a one-celled organism or dug us up out of the dust? And by the way...does it really seem more believable that an unknown man in the sky blew life into a dust figure and made it alive than it does to imagine a one-celled organism gradually evolving (over millions of years) into a human? Both are pretty amazing but the poof of breath into a dust figure is really hard to grasp...for me, anyway.

In my opinion, and contrary to what you believe and stated, I DO feel science and Christianity can blend quite nicely together...but only if the Christian does not believe the Bible as a 100% literal fact! It isn't necessary to believe that it took six days to create the earth...why does that matter when the lesson told here is that God created the earth! How He chose to do it should not be the point of contention. But it is...with those Christians I think of as Fundamentalists. And that is what digs the gap between Faith and Science. If you worry too much about whether or not Jonah was eaten by a whale or a big fish or even a giant squid, you lose the point of the lesson. And as far as I can tell, the Bible is a wonderful lesson on how to live. Did Adam & Eve have belly buttons? Who cares!

[GCSTroop]

Originally Posted by alicenavada

Um, since species is loosely defined as a group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producting fertile offspring, I meant exactly what I said. Perhaps I could have been more detailed but I think most people on these boards know that I make it a point to be as succinct as possible.

Yes, and more strictly defined as:

While in many cases this definition is adequate, more precise or differing measures are often used, such as based on similarity of DNA or morphology. Presence of specific locally adapted traits may further subdivide species into subspecies.
- Wikipedia

[arod0331]

Originally Posted by Preterist

Thank God!

Preterist

Thank Darwin