User Tag List

Thanks Thanks:  0
Likes Likes:  0
Page 2 of 9 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 86
  1. #11
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    7,033
    Reviews
    Read 0 Reviews
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    35

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by summerluv View Post
    The bible clearly states in Isaiah 40:22 It is He that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers.
    Place a cap atop a cup. The cup is cylindrical, but it is also potentially flat or bound. Place a square atop a rod and it can be rotated. The circle or circular motion regarded as a circle itself can exist without being a two dimensional sphere. The metaphorical and/or literal translation isn't going to work, with the given text. I think I remember seeing something else in the bible that was more subjective toward a plausible argument. I hope you won't mind if I PM you, should I find the passage. One might not like to try to use that literally (even if it were better mathematically) as it was written just like the four corners tidbit.
    Last edited by Intellexual; 06-10-2010 at 03:56 PM.
    2009: Transitioned
    2020: Mature, Freeformed Locs

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    8,960
    Reviews
    Read 0 Reviews
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    37

    Default

    Everyone, let's not deviate into a discussion about the Bible or evolution vs creation. Let's not go there. Keep it about the overall idea of science vs belief.

    Great discussion!! Let's keep it going.

    Quote Originally Posted by SassyB View Post
    This is just my lil' ol' opinion but I don't think this dichotomy actually exists. Isn't this negated by, let's say, a scientist with religious beliefs? No one should refute such a scientist's findings based solely on the fact that he is religious. That is foolishness to me. In this case, why do they have to be mutually-exclusive?
    Sassy, I agree with you. I love science and I'm also a person of faith. I don't think the two are mutually exclusive. However, in the real world, people seems to want to take sides and proclaim one side is real while the other side is just conjecture.

    By the way, if anyone is interested, Morgan Freeman has produced a new series on the Science Channel that discusses some of these issues. Google "Through the Wormhole." In the first episode it features a scientist who became a priest, a scientist who believes the "God concept" is just something created within the brain, and a scientist who believes in a "creator" but also believes that we (people) are just illusions in the mind of the "creator." It's all very interesting stuff.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    21,202
    Reviews
    Read 0 Reviews
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    77

    Default

    The notion of a separation of faith and science is a recent one, most, if not all, the great scientist of the Renaissance were believers but that didn't stop them from wanting to find out how the world around them works. As far as I'm concerned religion should take care of the morale side of man and science takes care of the physical world.

    Quote Originally Posted by SassyB View Post
    Well what else are they supposed to have? Again, to me this is assuming that there is something else beside the scientific method that scientists could be using to fortify their findings. I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess that this something is attributing their findings to a higher power. I wonder...if the scientific methodology included attributing the unknown to the doings of a higher power, then would this so-called battle between religion and science be no more.
    I think this is where the problem lies as well. Personally i have no problem with the notion of Intelligent design, but it should remain in the relm of religion, not science because it would make science say something it isn't. I say man is descended from that first creature that crawled out of the primordial pool and came to be through evolution. You say God had a hand in making it happen because He had a plan. And if you reject what science says, that's ok too, but again, that's about faith and belief and to me, that's not on the same level as speculation based on the what one extrapolate from the physical world.


    Blog - Twitter - Ravelry - Pinterest
    To those of you who've been digging through Celebrerie archives and liking my posts, thank you

  4. #14
    SassyB's Avatar
    SassyB is offline Active Nappturality Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    719
    Reviews
    Read 0 Reviews
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by summerluv View Post
    For me, science strengthens my faith in God. I know the original Scientist created all that we see here. It's a joy to behold all of His handiwork and the order of His creation. All of this order could not have come from chaos. We see a car and we know there was a manufacturer, so how can we see all the various life forms and think it all sprang up by chance?
    Re the highlighted: Why couldn't it have come from chaos?
    Re the bolded, I don't see why that's a hard pill to swallow for some. If that's the way it happened, then that's the way it happened!
    Quote Originally Posted by summerluv View Post
    @Sassy B
    I'm saying that the laws that they (and everyone) ascribe to proves that the theories they have faith in are impossible.

    For example the 1st law of Thermodynamics aka conservation of energy states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, only transformed to another form. So by that definition, evolution could not have occurred. Where did the first cell get the energy to divide itself from? If you're a christian this is not a problem, because we already know the Source from which all energy flows.
    Hmmm, I've run across evolution vs 2nd law of thermodynamics arguments, but not too many involving the 1st law.
    http://steamdoc.s5.com/writings/thermo.html
    This article was written by an evangelical Christian with a Ph.D in chemical engineering. It's quite interesting from what I skimmed and easy to read so I linked it.
    Either way, I'm sure someone with a physics background (GG, perhaps?) or someone who is pretty knowledgeable about the thermo laws could answer that.
    Re the bolded...do you know of any other such theories besides the 2nd law of thermodynamics?
    And besides, a theory doesn't prove anything. Theories are essentially very well-supported ideas. Examples include the cell theory, the particle theory, and the theory of plate tectonics to name a few off the top of my head. As I mentioned before, I can understand someone saying that another has "faith" in a theory because theories, especially of subjects that are not currently well-known, can be shattered as soon as one single piece of new evidence is discovered.
    The field of science and all its branches is a remarkable thing, but it doesn't claim to know everything and there are contradictions littered about here and there. That doesn't take away from its validity as a whole, it just means that scientists have a never-ending task before them.

    And I'm not singling out anyone here, but the vibe I get from a lot religious people regarding science is one of hostility. It's as if such people believe that Big, Bad Science is trying to take the validity, usefulness, and relevancy away from their God or something. They nit-pick and try to find loopholes to "disprove" some scientific theorem and use that to "prove" their belief for why their God exists. Why can't they both co-exist peacefully? As Lil John said, "don't start no sh1t, won't be no sh1t".
    Again, this is people who create a false dichotomy between religion and science--a true one doesn't exist, IMO.
    Last edited by SassyB; 06-10-2010 at 09:26 PM. Reason: clarification...i hope!
    "The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd; indeed in view of the silliness of the majority of mankind, a widespread belief is more likely to be foolish than sensible." - Bertrand Russell

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Atlanta, Ga.
    Posts
    6,854
    Reviews
    Read 0 Reviews
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    23

    Default

    Revelation
    1:7 "He cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him."
    Everyone will see Jesus descend from the sky. Such an event
    would only be possible on a flat earth.

    7:1 "I saw four angels standing on the four corners of the earth."
    The earth is flat and square-shaped, or at least quadrilateral in shape.
    http://www.Queenlocks.com
    http://queenlocks.wordpress.com
    NP Member for 10+ years!
    NP Of The Month OCT. 2004

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    2,100
    Reviews
    Read 0 Reviews
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    20

    Default

    Chacha, great question. I have been reading Derrick Jensen and Erich Fromm lately, and I do believe that the reliance on science can be considered a form of idolatry, and not just atheists, I mean society in general and even people that consider themselves religious. Yes, science has helped society in many areas, but it is not a foolproof method of experiencing the truth of our world. Dr's know a lot about the human body, but they don't know everything. We know some of the nutrients in any given fruit/veggie/meat, but there are actually components in these foods that we haven't identified yet, too.

    So, basically, yes, it can be argued that science/technology can be just as much a "crutch" as religion or any other belief system.
    BC: Spring 2000


  7. #17
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    6,268
    Reviews
    Read 0 Reviews
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    30

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Queenli19 View Post
    Revelation
    1:7 "He cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him."
    Everyone will see Jesus descend from the sky. Such an event
    would only be possible on a flat earth.

    7:1 "I saw four angels standing on the four corners of the earth."
    The earth is flat and square-shaped, or at least quadrilateral in shape.
    Here's a good break down of that. This article describes the "4 corners" really being in reference to North, South, East, and West.

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    London, U.K
    Posts
    8,875
    Reviews
    Read 0 Reviews
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    38

    Default

    Great thread - Rev 1:7 does not say everyone shall see Him at the same time lol

    'Four corners of the earth' sounds like a literary metaphor to me , we are allowed those in writing are we not?

    I agree science and religion are not mutally exclusive, some of European history greatest scientist were Christian believers (Newton, Galileo) and some were not. Its a shame in our time they seem to be at odds.
    http://public.fotki.com/Lockyladyden

    Join date March 2004
    Locks installed 12/2005.
    Go PANK you know you want to...

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    7,033
    Reviews
    Read 0 Reviews
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    35

    Default

    Jesus was a carpenter. That's an applied science. It's not amazing that scientists were theologically disciplined and/or devote also. It's surprising that people who are really bad or inarticulate representatives of their own discipline are sourced to refute the validity of someone else's experience(s). I believe that is what happens, in this day and age. People will take an extreme failure or lack of integrity and try to figure out how that defines a whole that the individual who isn't perfect is just a part of otherwise.
    2009: Transitioned
    2020: Mature, Freeformed Locs

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Chicagoland
    Posts
    16
    Reviews
    Read 0 Reviews
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    [QUOTE\]

    For example the 1st law of Thermodynamics aka conservation of energy states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, only transformed to another form. So by that definition, evolution could not have occurred. Where did the first cell get the energy to divide itself from? If you're a christian this is not a problem, because we already know the Source from which all energy flows.[/QUOTE]

    I am sorry if I am off topic, but do you believe that as a non-Christian, I cannot know the source from which all energy flows? Is it either "be a christian and know the answer to this equation" or stumble in the darkness? I am not being confrontational, I just want to know if this is how (you as a) christian sees this.

Page 2 of 9 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •