Religon Vs. Science

[popeye]

I'm happy for you. I am not a parent of humans; my dogs and cats are my children.

The reason I ask is because I used to be an EMT and delivered two children in the field. I witnessed the miracle of life first hand and felt the hand of God upon me. I wish you were able to feel His hand as well when your children were born. I ask you to just take a good long look at your child/children and think about their birth once again.

I appreciate you being here, friend.

I helped the midwife deliver 3 of my children. Took my breath away,litterally.

 

[JustinFromTwinCities]

Bleh, I guess I was asking for that response Human. I get worked up sometimes I apologize.
I just get so tired of the nonsense in the world sometimes and I hate when my brothers and sisters in Christ are made to feel like unintelligent fools because of their faith in God. I'll just clarify one thing. My point in the hypothetical rant about the caterpillar and the fish and all that is that there are impossible obstacles of which must be overcome in order to believe in evolution and that the organisms COULDNT have chosen anything, as mutation is random.

I used to believe in evolution too. I thought it could potentially be harmonious with Christianity. I just came to understand the sheer amount of blind faith mainstream scientists must necessarily possess in order to support the theory. Science is awesome and there is nothing wrong with increasing our knowledge of the physical world. But it is important to understand the common worldview of scientists who are attempting to answer the bigger questions about our existence. Namely, that all things can be understood without taking God into account. Which wouldn't be a problem IF the God of the Bible truly does not exist.

Atheism is a faith. Modern science is based upon that faith. That is modern sciences major glaring flaw (if the God of the Bible truly does exist). No matter how much a person considers himself on the cutting edge of mankind's "achievements" and advances in knowledge, that person has no proof whatsoever. They are just guessing and hoping and placing their faith in NOTHING. They don't even have anything to test, unlike people of faith who can test their "holy books" to see if they stand up to all forms of intellectual, ethical, historical criticisms etc.

So there is a big problem with the theory of evolution (besides the logical and scientific problems with it) which prevents it from being accurately and unbiasedly evaluated.

They have no other alternative theory.
They must necessarily stand behind evolution/atheism or else everything they have based the entire modern scientific community on will crumble. Only some of the more practical or theoretical sciences would be spared from the massacre that would follow. It would be like them having to admit the world was flat after all only a much bigger problem than even that.

The belief in evolution/atheism is central to everything. It is so ingrained in their minds, this belief or theory, that it could not possibly be untrue to them. So instead of looking at it from an unbiased perspective, they look at it as if it were already "scientific fact". Then all their further theories are created in an attempt to support it and understand it.

I could easily look at limitless amounts of data and come up with all sorts of little theories to support something. Anyone could.

Once you cut through all the religious fundamentalism that exists within the scientific community, their once compelling arguments fall flat on their face. There are many fields of study which are making evolution seem less and less viable if not completely impossible (which I believe it is). But they will never be able to see it, they will never be able to see beyond their blind faith.

But they will keep chugging away. Conjuring up little theories about a hand on a mouse in africa, or a fish on the bottom of the ocean etc. Always looking down on people that believe in God as if they were somehow superior to them. More "enlightened", yet they are guilty of the exact same thing. Somehow deceiving themselves into thinking that, "I don't know" is a more sophisticated answer than "God did it".

2 Timothy 3
always learning and never able to arrive at a knowledge of the truth.

Psalm 53
The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.”
They are corrupt, doing abominable iniquity;
there is none who does good.
2 God looks down from heaven
on the children of man
to see if there are any who understand,
who seek after God.
3 They have all fallen away;
together they have become corrupt;
there is none who does good,
not even one.
4 Have those who work evil no knowledge,
who eat up my people as they eat bread,
and do not call upon God?

 

[popeye]

Bleh, I guess I was asking for that response Human. I get worked up sometimes I apologize.
I just get so tired of the nonsense in the world sometimes and I hate when my brothers and sisters in Christ are made to feel like unintelligent fools because of their faith in God. I'll just clarify one thing. My point in the hypothetical rant about the caterpillar and the fish and all that is that there are impossible obstacles of which must be overcome in order to believe in evolution and that the organisms COULDNT have chosen anything, as mutation is random.

I used to believe in evolution too. I thought it could potentially be harmonious with Christianity. I just came to understand the sheer amount of blind faith mainstream scientists must necessarily possess in order to support the theory. Science is awesome and there is nothing wrong with increasing our knowledge of the physical world. But it is important to understand the common worldview of scientists who are attempting to answer the bigger questions about our existence. Namely, that all things can be understood without taking God into account. Which wouldn't be a problem IF the God of the Bible truly does not exist.

Atheism is a faith. Modern science is based upon that faith. That is modern sciences major glaring flaw (if the God of the Bible truly does exist). No matter how much a person considers himself on the cutting edge of mankind's "achievements" and advances in knowledge, that person has no proof whatsoever. They are just guessing and hoping and placing their faith in NOTHING. They don't even have anything to test, unlike people of faith who can test their "holy books" to see if they stand up to all forms of intellectual, ethical, historical criticisms etc.

So there is a big problem with the theory of evolution (besides the logical and scientific problems with it) which prevents it from being accurately and unbiasedly evaluated.

They have no other alternative theory.
They must necessarily stand behind evolution/atheism or else everything they have based the entire modern scientific community on will crumble. Only some of the more practical or theoretical sciences would be spared from the massacre that would follow. It would be like them having to admit the world was flat after all only a much bigger problem than even that.

The belief in evolution/atheism is central to everything. It is so ingrained in their minds, this belief or theory, that it could not possibly be untrue to them. So instead of looking at it from an unbiased perspective, they look at it as if it were already "scientific fact". Then all their further theories are created in an attempt to support it and understand it.

I could easily look at limitless amounts of data and come up with all sorts of little theories to support something. Anyone could.

Once you cut through all the religious fundamentalism that exists within the scientific community, their once compelling arguments fall flat on their face. There are many fields of study which are making evolution seem less and less viable if not completely impossible (which I believe it is). But they will never be able to see it, they will never be able to see beyond their blind faith.

But they will keep chugging away. Conjuring up little theories about a hand on a mouse in africa, or a fish on the bottom of the ocean etc. Always looking down on people that believe in God as if they were somehow superior to them. More "enlightened", yet they are guilty of the exact same thing. Somehow deceiving themselves into thinking that, "I don't know" is a more sophisticated answer than "God did it".

2 Timothy 3
always learning and never able to arrive at a knowledge of the truth.

Psalm 53
The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.”
They are corrupt, doing abominable iniquity;
there is none who does good.
2 God looks down from heaven
on the children of man
to see if there are any who understand,
who seek after God.
3 They have all fallen away;
together they have become corrupt;
there is none who does good,
not even one.
4 Have those who work evil no knowledge,
who eat up my people as they eat bread,
and do not call upon God?

It all mainly works amongst themselves. Outside their make believe world the freedom to think openly without the God smear ingredient ,a person can,without fear of their condecending belittlement, see God's blatant handiwork.

 

[popeye]

Jesus is the creator. They (scoffers,evolutionists,atheists) are not born again. So,the torment in their minds is partially glossed over by their fellowship of disenfranchisement.

Anywhere you find God dealing with man,you will find disenfranchisement attacking that very dimension.
In essence,they are part of the plan.Completely oblivious,they are used in a indirect manner.

 

[GandalfTheWhite]

What do you mean Gandalf? I know I don't rub well with prophecies.. Because unless the prophecy says 'This exact thing will happen in this exact place and on this exact day' then I don't entertain it lol.

But if you have anything else you can refer to we can talk about it. Let's do one at a time though lol

Without giving too much attention to the prophecy part of the birth of Christ I will tell you something that might just be a coincidence but you can decide yourself. Yeshua was born without any seed from a man. Right? (Humor me for a bit here my atheist friend) How is it possible that Yeshua knew that he could be born from a woman without receiving any blood from her? Unless in some miraculous way He knew that a baby formed in his mother’s womb only receive food from his mommy but no blood. Think about it, modern day science only figured it out recently.


Also if He did receive blood from his mommy He couldn’t have been the Messiah because His blood was then contaminated with “sinful seed”

 

[ColinCat]

Jesus is the creator. They (scoffers,evolutionists,atheists) are not born again. So,the torment in their minds is partially glossed over by their fellowship of disenfranchisement.

Anywhere you find God dealing with man,you will find disenfranchisement attacking that very dimension.
In essence,they are part of the plan.Completely oblivious,they are used in a indirect manner.

Lol we are mere pawns in your grand game of chess. We know who the queens and the bishops are, Ive do doubt who you believe who the king is... Does that now make you a rook or a knight? Lol

 

[royalscot]

when will science answer for the morals that it used,so its ok for them to hide behind there is no god. ie test tub baby. would, the first experiment need a human egg and a human sperm. i only used this a an example to many other things like dolly the cloned sheep. to morals that they claim christian s should show. when it clear, they have a lot to answer for them selfs.

 

[ColinCat]

when will science answer for the morals that it used,so its ok for them to hide behind there is no god. ie test tub baby. would, the first experiment need a human egg and a human sperm. i only used this a an example to many other things like dolly the cloned sheep. to morals that they claim christian s should show. when it clear, they have a lot to answer for them selfs.

Yeah I don't like all this cloning stuff. Its fascinating don't get me wrong. But I can't see this sort if thing ending well for us.

 

[royalscot]

Yeah I don't like all this cloning stuff. Its fascinating don't get me wrong. But I can't see this sort if thing ending well for us.

the joy of knowing there is a god. lol

 

[Human]

It all mainly works amongst themselves. Outside their make believe world the freedom to think openly without the God smear ingredient ,a person can,without fear of their condecending belittlement, see God's blatant handiwork.

The thing is, popeye, that nowhere in the published, peer-reviewed papers containing the biological, geological, biochemical, archaeological and mathematical works regarding evolutionary theory does anybody use the term ''and so there is no God''.

These papers are written with a view to establishing the antecedent physical factors that led to occurrences, investigating mechanisms and talking about physical and natural progressions; they are not purposed to ask if there is any theological purpose to evolutionary progression, or if the mountains were built just for us.

Asking ''what is the existential purpose of the raindrops?'' is sort of like asking ''what emotion is a cloud?''.

 

[Lizathrose]

when will science answer for the morals that it used,so its ok for them to hide behind there is no god. ie test tub baby. would, the first experiment need a human egg and a human sperm. i only used this a an example to many other things like dolly the cloned sheep. to morals that they claim christian s should show. when it clear, they have a lot to answer for them selfs.

"They"? Who exactly are you referring to? To be sure, there's certainly no scientific consensus concerning morality -- or the moral implications of controversial phenomena along the lines of cloning.

 

[WheresEnoch]

Asking ''what is the existential purpose of the raindrops?'' is sort of like asking ''what emotion is a cloud?''.

Obviously that depends on the color, shape, size and whether it is storing or releasing water

 

[Human]

Obviously that depends on the color, shape, size and whether it is storing or releasing water

What neurological chemicals are in a cumulonimbus?

 

[WheresEnoch]

What neurological chemicals are in a cumulonimbus?

It depends on what chemicals the elite are choosing to spray on any given day. It's a perverse thing, changing clouds moods for your own purposes

 

[Human]

It depends on what chemicals the elite are choosing to spray on any given day. It's a perverse thing, changing clouds moods for your own purposes

Thanks for that enlightening post, WheresEnoch, but:

I've never had control of spraying anything in clouds, and I can't fly planes, so ''changing clouds moods'' -- as ridiculous as that notion is -- is something that a) cannot be done as clouds don't have ''moods'' and b) something that, even if were possible, I can't do because I don't fly planes.

Also, PCP is dangerous.

 

[WheresEnoch]

Thanks for that enlightening post, WheresEnoch, but:

I've never had control of spraying anything in clouds, and I can't fly planes, so ''changing clouds moods'' -- as ridiculous as that notion is -- is something that a) cannot be done as clouds don't have ''moods'' and b) something that, even if were possible, I can't do because I don't fly planes.

Also, PCP is dangerous.

Are you implying that you are one of the "elite"?

 

[Human]

Are you implying that you are one of the "elite"?

lol you really do have a hard time interpreting what people say, don't you? No, I am illustrating that your statement ''It's a perverse thing, changing clouds moods for your own purposes'' was directed as to falsely include me in whatever group you fancifully believe are ''changing clouds moods''.

PCP is still dangerous.

 

[popeye]

Found this to be interesting from; Did Einstein Believe in God? - bethinking.org

"The following quotations from Einstein are all in Jammer’s book:

“Behind all the discernible concatenations, there remains something subtle, intangible and inexplicable. Veneration for this force is my religion. To that extent, I am in point of fact, religious.”[8]
​

“Every scientist becomes convinced that the laws of nature manifest the existence of a spirit vastly superior to that of men.”[9]
“Everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe – a spirit vastly superior to that of man.”[10]
​

“The divine reveals itself in the physical world.”[11]
​

“My God created laws… His universe is not ruled by wishful thinking but by immutable laws.”[12]
​

“I want to know how God created this world. I want to know his thoughts.”[13]
​

“What I am really interested in knowing is whether God could have created the world in a different way.”[14]
​

“This firm belief in a superior mind that reveals itself in the world of experience, represents my conception of God.”[15]
​

“My religiosity consists of a humble admiration of the infinitely superior spirit, …That superior reasoning power forms my idea of God.”[16]
​

What gives the lie to Dawkins’ claim that Einstein was an atheist is Einstein’s repeated references to “a superior spirit”, ”a superior mind”, "a spirit vastly superior to men”, ”a veneration for this force” etc. etc. This is not atheism. It is clear Einstein believed that there is something beyond the natural, physical world"

 

[CRC]

Nothing is wrong with having a love for Science. True Science is not in conflict with the Bible. Scientists have learned that matter is a concentrated form of energy. This is demonstrated with the explosion of nuclear weapons. From where could such energy come? After asking, “Who has created these things [the stars and planets]?”, the Bible states regarding Almighty God, “Due to the abundance of dynamic energy, he also being vigorous in power, not one of them is missing.” (Isa. 40:26) So God himself is the Source of all the “dynamic energy” that was needed to create the universe. Scientific facts show that all physical creation was not accomplished in just six days or sometime within the past 6,000 to 10,000 years.
Reason on this: Light from the Andromeda nebula can be seen on a clear night in the northern hemisphere. It takes about 2,000,000 years for that light to reach the earth, indicating that the universe must be at least millions of years old. In addition to that end products of radioactive decay in rocks in the earth testify that some rock formations have been undisturbed for billions of years.

Furthermore Genesis 1:3-31 is not discussing the original creation of matter or of the heavenly bodies. It describes the preparation of the already existing earth for human habitation. This included creation of the basic kinds of vegetation, marine life, flying creatures, land animals, and the first human pair. All of this is said to have been done within a period of six “days.” However, the Hebrew word translated “day” has a variety of meanings, including ‘a long time; the time covering an extraordinary event.’ The term used allows for the thought that each “day” could have been thousands of years in length.

 

[Human]

Found this to be interesting from; Did Einstein Believe in God? - bethinking.org

"The following quotations from Einstein are all in Jammer’s book:

“Behind all the discernible concatenations, there remains something subtle, intangible and inexplicable. Veneration for this force is my religion. To that extent, I am in point of fact, religious.”[8]
​

“Every scientist becomes convinced that the laws of nature manifest the existence of a spirit vastly superior to that of men.”[9]
“Everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe – a spirit vastly superior to that of man.”[10]
​

“The divine reveals itself in the physical world.”[11]
​

“My God created laws… His universe is not ruled by wishful thinking but by immutable laws.”[12]
​

“I want to know how God created this world. I want to know his thoughts.”[13]
​

“What I am really interested in knowing is whether God could have created the world in a different way.”[14]
​

“This firm belief in a superior mind that reveals itself in the world of experience, represents my conception of God.”[15]
​

“My religiosity consists of a humble admiration of the infinitely superior spirit, …That superior reasoning power forms my idea of God.”[16]
​

What gives the lie to Dawkins’ claim that Einstein was an atheist is Einstein’s repeated references to “a superior spirit”, ”a superior mind”, "a spirit vastly superior to men”, ”a veneration for this force” etc. etc. This is not atheism. It is clear Einstein believed that there is something beyond the natural, physical world"

He definitely didn't believe that ''venerable force'' was the JudeoChristian God.

“I believe in Spinoza's God, who reveals Himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a God who concerns Himself with the fate and the doings of mankind'' - Albert Einstein.

The further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances, the more certain it seems to me that the path to genuine religiosity does not lie through the fear of life, and the fear of death, and blind faith, but through striving after rational knowledge.'' - Albert Einstein

''The scientists’ religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection.'' - Albert Einstein

He didn't believe in some deistic cosmic creator that makes the minutae of human behaviour his primary focus among the cosmos -- in fact he thought such a notion was silly -- he believed in a rationalistic force inherent in the universe that was far beyond the limits of current religion -- that is the constraints of fear, irrationality and such that often lead those who follow them.

He was agnostic, by his own admission, and said ''I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it''.