Religion vs. Science

[avatar4321]

Religion is a BELIEF.
Science is a process of educated thought and study.

There is no accurate "word of God." Since God rarely gives press conferences. Jesus never appeared before any Biblical media. The Bible was not even put together until approximately 300 years after his death.

I believe in God. I have religious values. But I don't believe the earth is 6,000 years old. dmb probably has underwear older than that.

In the words of the late great Bill Hicks: "I have a one-word question for those who believe the Earth is less than 10,000 years old -- dinosaurs."

Science and religion are not as different as you seem to think. Both methods of seeking out and learning about the truth around us, just different aspects of that world. Science focuses more on the physical world around us. Religion the Spiritual/moral world around us.

Both take faith. You may not realize it, but it's certainly true. In each, a person experiments. A scientist with the physical world around him. A man of faith through an experimenting on the Word of God. Through these tests, a man of science can learn through trial and error. A man of Faith, however, can learn through revelation from God.

Both science and faith have witnesses. Scientists are the witnesses of science. They are the ones who preform the experiments. Most people in the world don't both to experiment on every little aspect of science themselves. Most inherently rely on the testimony of the scientists as to the experiment, the conditions of the experiment, and the conclusions. Thus through faith men rely on science. If a person wanted to find out for themselves, they could also engage in the experiments and can become witnesses for the experiment.

With religion, God calls witnesses to. These men are prophets and apostles and testify of the things God has taught them. And men who hear their message exercise faith. Through this faith they, like the scientists, may go before God through study and prayer and their own experiment on the Word and learn for themselves from God the same truths those called witnesses recieved. Through this way they also become witness.

Thus, religion and science are not that different. They both seek truth, they both have witnesses that learn that truth and testify of it to others. And we can see the results of both in our lives. The only difference is reason and revelation.

[avatar4321]

Please note that not all Christians believe in a six-day creation. Some of us believe in a billions-of-years-old universe, based on scientific evidence, created by God, as the Bible states.

I think what people fail to realize is that time is a very relative concept.

[avatar4321]

Why must it always be religion vs. science, as if those two are mutually exclusive. Most Western science was largely driven by a desire to understand God, and the Atheistic view that the two cannot intermingle has actually stifled science in some places.

I agree. The greatest scientific discoveries throughout the world was motivated by men who wanted to learn more about God through their study of the world He created. This myth that there is somehow an conflict between science and religion was created because people lacked faith in God and wanted to justify it somehow.

True science and true religion are identical for they teach the same Truth.

[Nienna]

I agree. The greatest scientific discoveries throughout the world was motivated by men who wanted to learn more about God through their study of the world He created. This myth that there is somehow an conflict between science and religion was created because people lacked faith in God and wanted to justify it somehow.

True science and true religion are identical for they teach the same Truth.

What's more, science relies upon the fact that there is ORDER in the universe, or else we couldn't expect to REPEAT experiment results.

[Nienna]

Unlike the mountain of pseudo-scientific evidence that supports the earth being ony a few thousand years old and Noah carrying dinosaurs on the ark, right?

You'd have to give me an example of the "pseudo-science." The age of the universe in the materialist model has been increasing more & more over the years, because of the idea that evolution needed TIME to progress as far as it did. Radioisotope dating methods are questionable.

And Noah did not CARRY dinosaurs onto the ark. He probably led or herded them. It might interest you to know that, based on FOSSIL EVIDENCE, the average size of a dinosaur was comparable to that of a goat.

I've yet to have any reasonable explanation of how a handful of middle-eastern Jews morphed into non-Jewish Asians, Africans, Australian aborigines, Native Americans, etc with totally different languages, alphabets, and religious lore within a few generations.

This is simple genetics. Ppl with light brown skin are the optimum ancestors if one wanted to produce all the variations of skin color. Say "M" is a gene for a large amount of melanin, and "m" is the gene for a small amount. A person with light brown skin may have the genetic combination "MmMm." If two parents with this genetic set were to produce offspring, their children might have any of sixteen combinations, including "MMMM" (which would be a very dark-skinned, or "black" person) and "mmmm" (which would be a very light-skinned, or "white" person. This can occur in ONE generation. Factor in isolation, inbreeding, and natural selection, and you have the basis for different "races," within maybe a couple hundred years.

The Bible accounts for the difference in languages, also (In the story of Babel), and there are some striking similarities between ancient religions. For instance, many include a Flood story. Wonder why that might be. Hmmmmmm....

The variation between the "races" is trivial. There is much wider variation between two people within the same race than there is between the characteristics that define the separate "races." Even evolutionists agree that separate people groups did not arise from separate animals, but all came from one original population.

There's not even a shred of evidence that Noah and company had the ability to make a ship capable of crossing an ocean. They would have to have constructed several navigable mini-arks to carry all of the indigenous wildlife to each of the continents as well...funny how that's not mentioned.

Noah's ark did not STEER. It was made for maximum STABILITY and capacity. It did not cross an ocean. That would not have been possible, since the entire world was an ocean during the flood. The ark was essentially a gigantic floating box, made to keep its contents safe during a storm. Noah had no destination; his aim was simply to stay above water. The ark's dimensions are recorded in Genesis, and scientists now know that its proportions are ideal for stability.

Neither did Noah carry wildlife to the different continents. The animals dispersed on their own.

The bottom line is that I place more credibility in the observable than in the supernatural. You can try to wish away the scientific evidence that the earth is billions-of-years-old and that we are descended from lower, pre-historic lifeforms, but the evidence exists and is irrefuteable.

Let the Bible serve as a moral compass. Trying to use it as a scientific guide will always leave you pointed in the wrong direction.

If you place more credibility in the observable, how is it that you believe in macroevolution? There has NEVER been one instance of the spontaneous appearance of new genetic information, recorded and observed. This is the lynchpin of the argument for macroevolution. Without it, the model folds. What we OBSERVE is that mutation involves a LOSS of genetic information, and a build-up of mutations renders a creature DISfunctional.

The Bible is not a science text. However, wherever it touches on science, history, etc, it will be proven correct. The great God and CreatOR of the universe knows more about his creation than a bunch of creatURES in white lab coats.

[Missileman]

You'd have to give me an example of the "pseudo-science." The age of the universe in the materialist model has been increasing more & more over the years, because of the idea that evolution needed TIME to progress as far as it did. Radioisotope dating methods are questionable.

The dating methods are only questionable to creationists because it doesn't fit their preconceived timetable. That's the difference between science and religion. Scientists are willing to modify their theories in the face of additional information. Creationists arbitrarily dismiss all evidence that doesn't fit their theory.

And Noah did not CARRY dinosaurs onto the ark. He probably led or herded them. It might interest you to know that, based on FOSSIL EVIDENCE, the average size of a dinosaur was comparable to that of a goat.

I didn't mean Noah physically carried the dinosaurs onto the ark, but that he had them on the ark along with other species. And I have no idea where you got your goat size from, but from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinosaur

Most dinosaurs, however, were much smaller than the giant sauropods. Current evidence suggests that dinosaur average size varied through the Triassic, early Jurassic, late Jurassic and Cretaceous periods.[10] According to paleontologist Bill Erickson, estimates of median dinosaur weight range from 500 kg to 5 tonnes; a recent study of 63 dinosaur genera yielded an average weight greater than 850 kg — comparable to the weight of a grizzly bear — and a median weight of nearly 2 tons, or about as much as a giraffe. This contrasts sharply with the size of modern mammals; on average, mammals weigh only 863 grams, or about as much as a large rodent. The smallest dinosaur was bigger than two-thirds of all current mammals; the majority of dinosaurs were bigger than all but 2% of living mammals.

And then there's this guy...you'd think a 65 ton creature would have got at least an honorable mention. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sauroposeidon

This is simple genetics. Ppl with light brown skin are the optimum ancestors if one wanted to produce all the variations of skin color. Say "M" is a gene for a large amount of melanin, and "m" is the gene for a small amount. A person with light brown skin may have the genetic combination "MmMm." If two parents with this genetic set were to produce offspring, their children might have any of sixteen combinations, including "MMMM" (which would be a very dark-skinned, or "black" person) and "mmmm" (which would be a very light-skinned, or "white" person. This can occur in ONE generation. Factor in isolation, inbreeding, and natural selection, and you have the basis for different "races," within maybe a couple hundred years.

The Bible accounts for the difference in languages, also (In the story of Babel), and there are some striking similarities between ancient religions. For instance, many include a Flood story. Wonder why that might be. Hmmmmmm....

None of this explains how Jews who had personally witnessed the power of God gave rise to Bhuddism, the Greek pantheon, Hinduism, the gods of the ancient Egyptians, Norsemen, and Native Americans, etc.

It doesn't pass the sanity test to claim that these people could reinvent themselves spiritually within a few generations if they had witnessed the real deal.

The variation between the "races" is trivial. There is much wider variation between two people within the same race than there is between the characteristics that define the separate "races." Even evolutionists agree that separate people groups did not arise from separate animals, but all came from one original population.


Noah's ark did not STEER. It was made for maximum STABILITY and capacity. It did not cross an ocean. That would not have been possible, since the entire world was an ocean during the flood. The ark was essentially a gigantic floating box, made to keep its contents safe during a storm. Noah had no destination; his aim was simply to stay above water. The ark's dimensions are recorded in Genesis, and scientists now know that its proportions are ideal for stability.

Neither did Noah carry wildlife to the different continents. The animals dispersed on their own.

This doesn't pass a sanity test either...for instance, how exactly did Kangaroos make it to Australia from Mt. Ararat.

Without navigable, sea-worthy ships, how did men make it to the other continents?

If you place more credibility in the observable, how is it that you believe in macroevolution? There has NEVER been one instance of the spontaneous appearance of new genetic information, recorded and observed. This is the lynchpin of the argument for macroevolution. Without it, the model folds. What we OBSERVE is that mutation involves a LOSS of genetic information, and a build-up of mutations renders a creature DISfunctional.

Read here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation

Mutations aren't limited to LOSS of information. Mutations don't always render a creature disfunctional.

The Bible is not a science text. However, wherever it touches on science, history, etc, it will be proven correct. The great God and CreatOR of the universe knows more about his creation than a bunch of creatURES in white lab coats.

What I find particularly amazing is totality of the blindness of faith exhibited by some people. Thousands of years ago, the ancient Greeks, Romans, Egyptians, etc. all devised elaborate religions that turned out to be a bunch of bunk, yet the elaborate, thousands of years old bunk of the Jews is different?

[The ClayTaurus]

If evolution were indeed true, then I have to ask, why are there no differences between the remains of ancient Egyptian mummies (some of which are over 3,000 years old) and those of modern humans?

Evolution is not something that HAS to happen, only something that can happen.

We seem to be doing pretty well as we are... what need to evolve is there?

[avatar4321]

Evolution is not something that HAS to happen, only something that can happen.

We seem to be doing pretty well as we are... what need to evolve is there?

I guess we have different definitions of "doing pretty well" because I completely disagree.

[The ClayTaurus]

I guess we have different definitions of "doing pretty well" because I completely disagree.

Your disgust at the general lack of morality in society aside, the population is flourishing... unless you contend human population is on the decline?

[gabosaurus]

How can you expect people to respect your religious values if you don't respect the religious values of others?
Clay Taurus makes some good points. Which reaffirm my opinion that religion is primarily faith based.

[avatar4321]

Your disgust at the general lack of morality in society aside, the population is flourishing... unless you contend human population is on the decline?

No, but I dont think it would take much to start incredibly conflict that could destroy most of mankind.

[avatar4321]

How can you expect people to respect your religious values if you don't respect the religious values of others?
Clay Taurus makes some good points. Which reaffirm my opinion that religion is primarily faith based.

Who has disrespected him?

[Missileman]

Who has disrespected him?

Yeah, I don't get that accusation either.

[avatar4321]

Yeah, I don't get that accusation either.

Yeah, i must have missed something. I also dont understand how that proves her point that religion is mostly faith based... Especially since religion is clearly based on faith. because faith proceeds the miracle.

[The ClayTaurus]

No, but I dont think it would take much to start incredibly conflict that could destroy most of mankind.

Evolution doesn't correct for catastrophic incidents, be they natural or species-induced.

What need to evolve is there?