Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I've been a quiet lurker on these boards and must admit, some of you have some very unscientific views about.....everything. I think it's funny how many religious (Christians) have a very strict, unwavering interpretation of the bible, yet will then change their stance and state that they don't see how religion and science can't co-exist.
Of course this is after there's so much evidence to point to a scientific explanation that they simply cannot deny it's reality, so are forced to accept it, only under the pretense of "god made it happen".
The reality here is that the two can't exist. I mean, if you're going to live your life by a book and profess it to be the "word of god", then you MUST accept everything that's in it. Why do Christians pick and choose?
You really cannot say you believe evolution and creationism can co-exist. Why? Because evolution is based off a plethora of scientific evidence including bone records, fossils, and other tangible, obvious evidence. There is zero evidence to suggest that the world was created in seven days 3,000 years ago. You won't hear any scientists making that claim today - just religious organizations who benefit from the propogation of that belief.
This is my main problem with religious people. If you really want to believe in what you believe in, you're free to do that. But please stop suggesting that fairy tales written thousands of years ago by primitive man has any validity over proven science.
I believe that since God instilled us with His qualities, that He also gave us the ability to develop scientifically. BTW, fairy tales are exactly that: pure fiction. The Bible can be proven scientifically/archaeologically.
I believe that since God instilled us with His qualities, that He also gave us the ability to develop scientifically. BTW, fairy tales are exactly that: pure fiction. The Bible can be proven scientifically/archaeologically.
What exactly contained within the bible can be scientifically proven? I wasn't aware of anything.
You're dodging the question. If you truly believe the bible to be the word of god, then you'll certainly have proven examples of evidence which supports your beliefs, right?
I'd be inclined to believe if there were evidence, however there isn't, so I don't.
I'm not dodging the question. It's just that even when I provide what is determined to be evidence based on archaeological findings, the people questioning still do not believe so it becomes a moot point to try and continue with the discussion. But if you insist on pursuing, ok, we'll start with this one I saw today. Here is the link:
Report: Herod's Temple quarry found - Yahoo! News (broken link)
What about the Dead Sea Scrolls? How about the discovery of the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah and the petrified stones of sulphur discovered in and around the cities? How about Jerusalem itself? I wonder why people have no problem believing other non-christian related historical documents and archaelogical findings but when it comes to multi-person testimonies and findings, people simply cannot see it? Oh well, I guess that's what makes us diverse.
I'm not dodging the question. It's just that even when I provide what is determined to be evidence based on archaeological findings, the people questioning still do not believe so it becomes a moot point to try and continue with the discussion. But if you insist on pursuing, ok, we'll start with this one I saw today. Here is the link:
Report: Herod's Temple quarry found - Yahoo! News (broken link)
What about the Dead Sea Scrolls? How about the discovery of the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah and the petrified stones of sulphur discovered in and around the cities? How about Jerusalem itself? I wonder why people have no problem believing other non-christian related historical documents and archaelogical findings but when it comes to multi-person testimonies and findings, people simply cannot see it? Oh well, I guess that's what makes us diverse.
Urban, I think what he's ultimately getting at here is that the very same people who want to point out these discoveries of biblical findings often fail to recognize that in order for them to be real, proven, Scrolls, ruins, or stones, they must be dated. I've never seen a Christian hesitate when it comes to throwing these sorts of things up. And that's fine, if they were dated using the correct dating methods than fine, you may have found the Dead Sea Scrolls. But, don't forget, the same dating methods are often scrutinized by creationists to prove that the earth isn't millions of years old. You can't have it both ways. I think that's ultimately the line that is crossed between science and religion.
I can understand that, to be sure. It begs the question though as to whether we can actually trust dating these days. We have found that carbon dating is no longer reliable and I don't know much about the newer techniques but I wonder if we'll ever truly be able to accurately determine dates.
I think you've got to establish a few things, first. When someone says they believe in the Bible, I always wonder, which one? Because the King James version is called a version for a reason. And it's important to consider that the documents that the Bible includes were oftentimes translations of translations, and the Christian church (Catholic at the time) selected from several gospels available to best serve the message they wanted to send. Does anyone know if the Old Testament was comprised the same way? And since it was certainly transcribed by various scholars over time, how do we know what the original texts said? One word change can change the entire meaning of a sentence, a passage, a chapter. And the changes can be very subtle, or really major, and they would simply have been passed on from generation to generation. It's not like the early Christian population of Europe or Northern Africa was literate. They listened to the stories priests told them; to assume that the Word of God hasn't changed over the centuries, hasn't been deliberately changed to serve political purposes, is incredibly naive. The King James version was written, after all, to serve the political needs of King James in reconciling his kingdoms. I've been told that it doesn't matter, because it is the inspired word of God, but even reading different versions today, there are disparities.
So I would think that for some people that religion and science can certainly co-exist, science is a way of making sense of the world, religion isn't just about making sense of our environment, it's about answering questions that science doesn't. Questions like why are we here, what is our purpose. Science steps around those questions, wonders why we ask those questions, do other animals think like we do, do all other living things feel?
And it's important to note that science is a methodology, it poses questions and then poses answers. When the answer no longer explains the observations adequately, then it's discarded, and new answers are suggested. Science is a journey. So, for many people, the contradictions between scientific evidence and their religious beliefs, don't mean that either is wrong, it just means that science hasn't progressed enough.
DC
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
