As Science is moving ahead and discovering new things daily
- Thread starter JLMACN
- Start date
as far as science disproving the bible i think that since people take the bible so literally and think its so precise there are incosistencies(sp?)...since the stories in the bible have been passed down i doubt the original stories were understood they same way they are now...instead of searching for facts from the stories i think people of faith should focus more on the meaning...i do agree that you shoudnt follow religion blindy but in the same sense i belive in god because i have a relationship with him...its kinda wierd but i think when most christians here evidence against our faith they just tune it out...my belief is that we cannot possibly know god's ways or why he does stuff so i dont waste my time trying to figure it out...its kinda like how people who carry guns are like well id rather be caught with it than without it...i think thats how some people feel about religion like id rather have followed god and when he returns il be in heaven or if he doesnt exist i didnt really loose anything by living a righteous life...my opinions
I hear what you are saying and this is a famous argument...
"Id rather be safe than sorry"
The problem with that is there are so many beliefs in this world, some come before Christianity even existed. So whos to say that your belief is more correct over someone else. I guess what Im saying is, in Christianity you have to pronouce Jesus as your lord and savior to enter in the gates of heaven. No matter how good of a life you have lived or havent lived.
and have to truely believe that Jesus is your savior. I think most people who live by that "safe than sorry" rule dont really believe that Jesus is their savior, they just say they do because it makes them feel better.
Ill use your example to explain this.
Just like you said people carry guns to "be more safe than sorry", well I dont think all the people who carry guns really believe they are even going to shoot it or want to shoot it for that matter, its just a scare factor.
you get what im saying?
All you are doing by living your life by the "safe or sorry" rule is playing a game with the "would be god".
and I also believe if your mind could talk, it would be pissed at you for living your life like that.
5000
"Id rather be safe than sorry"
The problem with that is there are so many beliefs in this world, some come before Christianity even existed. So whos to say that your belief is more correct over someone else. I guess what Im saying is, in Christianity you have to pronouce Jesus as your lord and savior to enter in the gates of heaven. No matter how good of a life you have lived or havent lived.
and have to truely believe that Jesus is your savior. I think most people who live by that "safe than sorry" rule dont really believe that Jesus is their savior, they just say they do because it makes them feel better.
Ill use your example to explain this.
Just like you said people carry guns to "be more safe than sorry", well I dont think all the people who carry guns really believe they are even going to shoot it or want to shoot it for that matter, its just a scare factor.
you get what im saying?
All you are doing by living your life by the "safe or sorry" rule is playing a game with the "would be god".
and I also believe if your mind could talk, it would be pissed at you for living your life like that.
5000
Explain to me how evolution is not science?
Perhaps you are unfamiliar with term...
Please explain to me how evolution does not fit these definitions.
Perhaps you are unfamiliar with term...
sci·ence Pronunciation[sahy-uhns]
–noun
1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.
2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
3. any of the branches of natural or physical science.
4. systematized knowledge in general.
5. knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.
6. a particular branch of knowledge.
7. skill, esp. reflecting a precise application of facts or principles; proficiency.
–noun
1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.
2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
3. any of the branches of natural or physical science.
4. systematized knowledge in general.
5. knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.
6. a particular branch of knowledge.
7. skill, esp. reflecting a precise application of facts or principles; proficiency.
Please explain to me how evolution does not fit these definitions.
Slap yourself
Even though you're technically right - evoultion is not a science, it is a scientific theory
What is real science according to you?
Only what fits our beliefs?
Well, you don't have much left then, because everything from biology to physics and chemistry to EAPS contradicts the bible big time
Math is the only branch of science that doesn't contradict the bible but math is not science in the real sense because there is no objective experimental verification of mathematical findings
Even then, the scientific method (hypothesis formulation -> experiments -> refinement of hypothesis -> theory) is in direct conflict with the "religious method" (take whatever your holy books tells you for granted)
Even though you're technically right - evoultion is not a science, it is a scientific theory
What is real science according to you?
Only what fits our beliefs?
Well, you don't have much left then, because everything from biology to physics and chemistry to EAPS contradicts the bible big time
Math is the only branch of science that doesn't contradict the bible but math is not science in the real sense because there is no objective experimental verification of mathematical findings
Even then, the scientific method (hypothesis formulation -> experiments -> refinement of hypothesis -> theory) is in direct conflict with the "religious method" (take whatever your holy books tells you for granted)
Evolution is not based on facts? Evolution is based on fact & theory
I guess all these people walking around calling themselves "scientists" are frauds. The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of a phenomena, such as evolution is apparently not science. It must be sorcery then!
I guess all these people walking around calling themselves "scientists" are frauds. The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of a phenomena, such as evolution is apparently not science. It must be sorcery then!
Evolution reminds me of Egyptology.. It interprets information and data provided by science and formulates their own particular theories, but Egyptology isn't a science, it draws from Anthropology, Archeology, history, and literature..
Evolution draws from Biology, Archeology, and Cosmology among other things, but evolution with in its self is just a theory based on a limited amount of facts attributed to the actual sciences..
Evolution draws from Biology, Archeology, and Cosmology among other things, but evolution with in its self is just a theory based on a limited amount of facts attributed to the actual sciences..
I repeat - eukaryots are much more similar to archaeans than they are to eubacteria
Of course, archaeans posses some highly diverged features like isoprenoid-containing membrane lipids, but they have TBP, TFIIB, TFIIE, TFIIF and TFIIH, a multisubunit RNA Polymerase, TATA and BRE elements in promoters, and eukaryote-like translational cofactors (aIF-2, aIF1A, aIF5A, aIF6 and others)
So the LUCA (last universal common ancestor) was probably something between archaea and true eukaryots, bacteria diverged earlier
It should be noted that it is almost certain there's been extensive horizontal gene transfer between different lineages in early stages when genomes weren't as stable as they are today and this has played major role in evolution
Of course, archaeans posses some highly diverged features like isoprenoid-containing membrane lipids, but they have TBP, TFIIB, TFIIE, TFIIF and TFIIH, a multisubunit RNA Polymerase, TATA and BRE elements in promoters, and eukaryote-like translational cofactors (aIF-2, aIF1A, aIF5A, aIF6 and others)
So the LUCA (last universal common ancestor) was probably something between archaea and true eukaryots, bacteria diverged earlier
It should be noted that it is almost certain there's been extensive horizontal gene transfer between different lineages in early stages when genomes weren't as stable as they are today and this has played major role in evolution