science or religion - Page 3 - Great Lakes 4x4. The largest offroad forum in the Midwest

Go Back   Great Lakes 4x4. The largest offroad forum in the Midwest > General 4x4 Stuff > Politics, Government, or Religion Chat
GL4x4 Live! GL4x4 Casino

Politics, Government, or Religion Chat Bring your flamesuit!

greatlakes4x4.com is the premier Great Lakes 4x4 Forum on the internet. Registered Users do not see the above ads.
Search
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old November 7th, 2007, 05:28 PM   #41
kerryann
German cars are hot
 
kerryann's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: West Bloomfield
Posts: 11,446
iTrader: (3)
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mikesova View Post
no i'm scared that he and people like him will run the world...oh wait, they already are...GW Bush, pushing his evangelical agenda... life is like a horror movie.
My life isn't like a horror movie.. lets see why..
1. because I have a wonderful marriage where we are best friends and pray together every night.
2. because I work hard and have a good job.
3. because I have great friends and coworkers
4. because I have wonderful pets, gifts from god
5. because I have an optomistic attitude and I don't expect anyone else to find happiness for me.
and finally
6. because I know that I will be reunited with everyone I love and live forever after I leave this earth.

But you have made Bruce's post go way off track Mr. everything's political.

Bruce has made a valid point and rather than addressing it you are just trying to change the subject.

If science says religion can't be based on faith alone then science must be based on provable evidence.
I personally think that science and faith can live together.

The sixth day could have been x number years in our current days. God could have created the animals and let the animals evolve and some might die. In the end he still created them.
kerryann is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old November 7th, 2007, 06:10 PM   #42
amc78cj7
Senior Member
 
amc78cj7's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-07-05
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 5,354
iTrader: (9)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Are you referring to Evolution?

There are a lot of holes in the theory of differentiation of species via evolution. Yet many scientist refer to the theory as truth. Maybe I am just a skeptical scientist, but in my opinion no theory can be deemed absolute unless it is a testable. That is not to say it is not true (ie. your invisible particles may exist, we just don't have the technology to detect them); however it would be scientifically unsound to say that they absolutly exist without evidence. That requires faith.

So you see, the theory of evolution from single-celled organisms to humans requires quite a bit of faith.......
__________________
I'm not quoting idiots who promote unsafe recovery strap techniques anymore. :miff:
amc78cj7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 7th, 2007, 06:13 PM   #43
amc78cj7
Senior Member
 
amc78cj7's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-07-05
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 5,354
iTrader: (9)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by brewmenn View Post
Not trying to make anything sound more plausible. I just find it interesting that if a scientist stay something must exist because it's the only way his theorys work, but can't be proven otherwise, they call it science, but if Dave Kerwin were to make simular claims everyone would call it religion.

When religious person says theres things and forces out there beyond our comprehesion they call it god.
When a scientist says theres things and forces out there beyond our comprehesion they call it "dark matter and energy".

Maybe they're the same thing.

Have you been reading Phillip Pullman books? You know his movie for children is coming out this December. It is certain to ruffle some feathers as the theme of the series is waging war on God in order to protect children. He is noted to be a leading atheist in England.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Pullman

"Pullman is a supporter of the British Humanist Association and an Honorary Associate of the National Secular Society. New Yorker journalist Laura Miller has described Pullman as one of England's most outspoken atheists. [4]

The His Dark Materials books have been controversial with some Christian groups. Peter Hitchens has claimed that Pullman actively pursues an anti-Christian agenda.[5]"
__________________
I'm not quoting idiots who promote unsafe recovery strap techniques anymore. :miff:

Last edited by amc78cj7; November 7th, 2007 at 06:16 PM.
amc78cj7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 7th, 2007, 06:16 PM   #44
mikesova
My 4x4 is a Subaru.
 
mikesova's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: Gladwin, MI
Posts: 7,874
iTrader: (1)
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Send a message via AIM to mikesova
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kerryann View Post
But you have made Bruce's post go way off track Mr. everything's political.
politics and religion in America seem to go hand in hand...here's a beaming example of such:

YouTube Video
ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.
mikesova is online now   Reply With Quote
Old November 7th, 2007, 06:33 PM   #45
amc78cj7
Senior Member
 
amc78cj7's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-07-05
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 5,354
iTrader: (9)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by artistic_gore View Post
In both science and religion you have to have faith. However in science they say "Allright you don't believe, give us a while and we'll prove it to you" religion is more, "I'm right, you're wrong, take it or leave it, we don't have to prove a thing"

This of course is just my opinion, you can see I am a very devout atheist.
I am a scientist and a Christian and find your point of view to be off a bit.

As a Scientist: I formulate a hypothesis based on known information. I test that hypothesis. I report the results (regardless of whether they support or oppose my hypothesis). Myself or another scientist formulates a new hypothesis based on the results. There is no "I'm going to prove to you that my point is correct". It is very non-bias.

As a Christian: I have a faith that requires no supporting evidence to validate. (see my post above about evolutionists as well). My faith does not require results or "buy-in" from others. I can tell you about my faith as it might help you formulate your beliefs. But whether or not you follow my beliefs does not change their validity to me.

The two are not mutually exclusive. You can have a faith and the observations you make as a scientist may make sense based on that faith. I can say "God created the earth and used a similar template for all animals as aparent by the similarities. Systems such as sight, memory, speech could not have developed on their own." Another can say "All animals diverged from a single species as aparent by the similarities. Systems such as sight, memory, speech are still developing in lesser species, but because evolution takes millenia we cannot observe the changes." Yet neither theories of how we became who we are today are testable hypotheses because you cannot test something that happened before recorded history. And so, if either are presented as "absolute" you must understand that the outcome has been contaminated with bias.
__________________
I'm not quoting idiots who promote unsafe recovery strap techniques anymore. :miff:
amc78cj7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 7th, 2007, 09:46 PM   #46
brewmenn
Grumpy old man.
 
brewmenn's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: Inkster, MI
Posts: 10,579
iTrader: (9)
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Kerwin View Post
Bruce, let me challenge you on this. If you find Genesis to be of questionable origins, how do you find the other scriptues to be of more reputable origins? To me it is all, or it is none. What do you think?

Right about the 2k years ago, but I think you have it a bit understated. It didn't just have people talking, it turned the world upside down.
If by "questionable origin" vs. "reputable origin" you mean "the words of men" vs "the word of God", then I question the origins of much of the bible. I only mentioned Genesis because it is the one that discusses creation. That is not to say that I see it asa book of fiction, but rather that much of it was probably mearly the writen version of the many oral storys and legends passed down over many centuries from one generation to the next. And as you know, most stories get better with time, so a story about how someone saved thier family and livestock from a flood buy putting them in a boat could become a great epic tale of saving the entire human and animal kingdom from gods rath by building an arc.

I know that it's the teaching of most churches, including the one I belong to, that the bible is the devine word of God and that God guided the hands of everyone that wrote it and everyone that translated it through the milleniums, but if thats true why do we have so many different translations? Why do we have Mormon and Jehovah's witness bibles? Why weren't the hands of the authors of those bibles simularly guided? Or were they? And if 2 groups in the last 200 years managed to slip in thier versions of the bible without gods guiding hand who's to say that there weren't other biblical translators, or even writers, who may have also avoided gods guiding hand while doing thier work.

Given that there were other writings from the time of Christ that weren't included in the bible, did Athanasius and the other responsible for developing the canon of New Testament books really seek to identify those writings most likely to be authentic words of God? Or did they choose books based on which ones most closly represented the message they wanted to present?

Or maybe I'm just to much of a skeptic. Just as I have a difficult time accepting as science a theory that required the invention of matter and energy that can not be detected in any way, I have a difficult time accepting an ancient story that when taken literaly seems to run contrary to what we observe around us.

And the ramblings of an uneducated lunitic criminal like Kent Hovind is unlikely to sway my opinions.
brewmenn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 7th, 2007, 10:42 PM   #47
JDRL
Big Member
 
Join Date: 05-22-07
Location: mi
Posts: 662
iTrader: (2)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Motor Slut View Post
Umm it's both and it can be both because Science is exploration of the unknown and refinement of the known. God is the unknown and maybe someday science will find him.

Science better hope not. Hes pissed.
JDRL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 7th, 2007, 11:08 PM   #48
amc78cj7
Senior Member
 
amc78cj7's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-07-05
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 5,354
iTrader: (9)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by brewmenn View Post
I know that it's the teaching of most churches, including the one I belong to, that the bible is the devine word of God and that God guided the hands of everyone that wrote it and everyone that translated it through the milleniums, but if thats true why do we have so many different translations? Why do we have Mormon and Jehovah's witness bibles? Why weren't the hands of the authors of those bibles simularly guided? Or were they? And if 2 groups in the last 200 years managed to slip in thier versions of the bible without gods guiding hand who's to say that there weren't other biblical translators, or even writers, who may have also avoided gods guiding hand while doing thier work.

.
Bruce, I think Jesus may have anticipated you question.

Matthew 13:24 - 30

"He put before them another parable: "The kingdom of heaven may be compared to someone who sowed good seed in his field; but while everybody was asleep, an enemy came and sowed weeds* among the wheat, and then went away. So when the plants came up and bore grain, then the weeds appeared as well. And the slaves of the householder came and said to him, 'Master, did you not sow good seed in your field? Where, then, did these weeds come from?' He answered, 'An enemy has done this.' The slaves said to him, 'Then do you want us to go and gather them?' But he replied, 'No; for in gathering the weeds you would uproot the wheat along with them. Let both of them grow together until the harvest; and at harvest time I will tell the reapers, Collect the weeds first and bind them in bundles to be burned, but gather the wheat into my barn.'"

*The footnotes read that the word "darnel" was originally used. Darnel is a "wheat-like" weed. In other words, the devil seeded something that appeared like wheat, but was really a weed. And Jesus says they will be sorted out after harvest. I suspect that the "prophet" of the mormons is one of those "darnels".
__________________
I'm not quoting idiots who promote unsafe recovery strap techniques anymore. :miff:
amc78cj7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 8th, 2007, 09:25 PM   #49
brewmenn
Grumpy old man.
 
brewmenn's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: Inkster, MI
Posts: 10,579
iTrader: (9)
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by amc78cj7 View Post
Bruce, I think Jesus may have anticipated you question.

Matthew 13:24 - 30

"He put before them another parable: "The kingdom of heaven may be compared to someone who sowed good seed in his field; but while everybody was asleep, an enemy came and sowed weeds* among the wheat, and then went away. So when the plants came up and bore grain, then the weeds appeared as well. And the slaves of the householder came and said to him, 'Master, did you not sow good seed in your field? Where, then, did these weeds come from?' He answered, 'An enemy has done this.' The slaves said to him, 'Then do you want us to go and gather them?' But he replied, 'No; for in gathering the weeds you would uproot the wheat along with them. Let both of them grow together until the harvest; and at harvest time I will tell the reapers, Collect the weeds first and bind them in bundles to be burned, but gather the wheat into my barn.'"

*The footnotes read that the word "darnel" was originally used. Darnel is a "wheat-like" weed. In other words, the devil seeded something that appeared like wheat, but was really a weed. And Jesus says they will be sorted out after harvest. I suspect that the "prophet" of the mormons is one of those "darnels".

I understand all that, but it doesn't really help me with my question.

It's all well and good that God will know when it's time for the big harvest which is the weeds to be burned and which is the wheat to be stored in his big barn in the sky. My question is while I'm a lowly sharecroper down here on the surface how do I know which is the yummy wheat that I should be feeding myself and my family, and which is the nasty weeds that will poison us for eternity? How do we know that some didn't slip in some weeds into our wheat 1000 years ago and that thats what we've been eating up all this time?
brewmenn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 8th, 2007, 10:27 PM   #50
amc78cj7
Senior Member
 
amc78cj7's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-07-05
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 5,354
iTrader: (9)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by brewmenn View Post
How do we know that some didn't slip in some weeds into our wheat 1000 years ago and that thats what we've been eating up all this time?

Much of the new testament are a compilation of letters from Paul to the Romans, the Corinthians, etc spreading the gospel and telling them of salvation through Christ - laying the foundation for today's Christian religion. Paul (Saul) was a persecutor of Christians (murdered many) before becoming an Apostle of Christ. Most Christians know this as it is very well documented history. What you may or may not know is that Paul became an Apostle AFTER Jesus died, was buried and risen.

Paul did not cross paths with the other apostles, yet he was intimately aware of the relationship they had with Christ, including the breaking of the bread and partaking of the wine as his broken body and shed blood. How? Because he too had shared that time with Christ and a much later time.

Furthermore, Corinthians 15:6 tells us that after Christ's rising from the grave "Then he appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep." Why is this significant? At that time Roman law required that only 2 witnesses were necessary to execute a man for murder. Paul is providing to the current law of that time many more than 2 first-hand witnesses that could be questioned of the validity of the resurrection. Would the witnesses lie? Why would they. Their support of Christianity would lead not only to persecution, but possibly to certain damnation if not true. They would stand much better fate to deny the resurrection - yet they don't. In fact, Paul spent much time in prison for his teachings.

So are these false writings? I don't know what would possess someone to desire imprisionment, torture and persecution to defend a false story.
__________________
I'm not quoting idiots who promote unsafe recovery strap techniques anymore. :miff:
amc78cj7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 18th, 2007, 11:30 AM   #51
L4CX
Out for the Summer!
 
L4CX's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-16-07
Location: Hillsdale, MI
Posts: 5,000
iTrader: (5)
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JDRL View Post
Science better hope not. Hes pissed.
I love it! That is Funny.

I think Science is a way to explain God's creation as I see it. I'm not a huge Theologian or Anything like that, but I know the two exist and work hand and hand, if you have the view point I have. God created science so we could admire his world.

I think Kent Hovind is a cool guy and has some good ideas. He does seem a bit too Cocky for me. We've watched all of his Videos at the ministry house I used to live at. It's very good stuff, It would take alot of personal research to believe his theories though. Research I don't have time for......
L4CX is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply
Great Lakes 4x4. The largest offroad forum in the Midwest > General 4x4 Stuff > Politics, Government, or Religion Chat

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:18 PM.


Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright 2000 - 2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd. Runs best on HiVelocity Hosting.
Page generated in 0.30008 seconds with 54 queries