[_ Old Earth _] God´s Love v. Scientific Chaos

[The Ascetic Crusader]

When young people learn in class that they (like the Universe) come form
"nothing", what impact does this have on their "worldview" ? On how they view "themselves" ? Is there a difference between being " created " by a loving God and " sprouting " from Chaos (nothing) ?

Lets hear what you have to say ...

 

[jwu]

Science does not make that claim in first instance, and it makes no statement whatsoever about the involvement of God.


Wait a second...didn't you create a thread titled "creatio ex nihilo", which i guess is about God creating the universe from nothing? So what's so bad about coming from nothing in first instance?

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

I don't believe that science and God are opposed as some people do.

Many people seem to think that finding materialistic / naturalistic explanations for phenomenon we see (life, the universe and everything) somehow diminishes God.

I take the opposite view. God created nature did He not? Therefore any study of nature is a study of the divine. Since we live in a material universe, materialistic / naturalistic explanations are what we should expect.

 

[Quadeshet]

One would hope that students are learning that they are the beautiful result of eons of adaptation to their environment. Such instruction would include information about ecology, evolution and cultural development. It would be misleading of an instructor to tell a student that they came from 'nothing'.

In my experience, this creates a feeling of connection with the earth and all other living things.

In what way does a student who recieves only creationist information about human origins have the advantage you imply?

 

[reznwerks]

Re: Christian Love v. Scientific Chaos

When young people learn in class that they (like the Universe) come form
"nothing", what impact does this have on their "worldview" ? On how they view "themselves" ? Is there a difference between being " created " by a loving God and " sprouting " from Chaos (nothing) ?

Lets hear what you have to say ...

They don't learn that in class.

 

[moniker]

Re: Christian Love v. Scientific Chaos

When young people learn in class that they (like the Universe) come form
"nothing", what impact does this have on their "worldview" ? On how they view "themselves" ? Is there a difference between being " created " by a loving God and " sprouting " from Chaos (nothing) ?

Lets hear what you have to say ...

I have never heard of a science class (outside of advanced college courses in biology perhaps) that taught the theory of abiogenesis. What school is this, who are tackling such difficult concepts and at such a young age?

 

[Heidi]

Science does not make that claim in first instance, and it makes no statement whatsoever about the involvement of God.


Wait a second...didn't you create a thread titled "creatio ex nihilo", which i guess is about God creating the universe from nothing? So what's so bad about coming from nothing in first instance?

Because God had a purpose for our creation: to spend eternity in heavenely bliss. But scientists say there is no point to our creation and when we die, we spend eternity in nothingness and we won't even be able to remember the fleeting life we had.

 

[The Ascetic Crusader]

Science does not make that claim in first instance, and it makes no statement whatsoever about the involvement of God.


Wait a second...didn't you create a thread titled "creatio ex nihilo", which i guess is about God creating the universe from nothing? So what's so bad about coming from nothing in first instance?

Because God had a purpose for our creation: to spend eternity in heavenely bliss. But scientists say there is no point to our creation and when we die, we spend eternity in nothingness and we won't even be able to remember the fleeting life we had.

You tell ´em sister !!!![/b]

 

[The Ascetic Crusader]

Science does not make that claim in first instance, and it makes no statement whatsoever about the involvement of God.


Wait a second...didn't you create a thread titled "creatio ex nihilo", which i guess is about God creating the universe from nothing? So what's so bad about coming from nothing in first instance?

Because God had a purpose for our creation: to spend eternity in heavenely bliss. But scientists say there is no point to our creation and when we die, we spend eternity in nothingness and we won't even be able to remember the fleeting life we had.

This bright young lady just summed up the gist of it all . God´s truth v. Scientific truth. The divine power of life that is God v. the cult of death that is Science.

Remember, Science is 99% baloney theory to 1% science fact . On the other hand God and The Bible are 100% truth.


You can take THAT to the bank!!!!

 

[Heidi]

Science does not make that claim in first instance, and it makes no statement whatsoever about the involvement of God.


Wait a second...didn't you create a thread titled "creatio ex nihilo", which i guess is about God creating the universe from nothing? So what's so bad about coming from nothing in first instance?

Because God had a purpose for our creation: to spend eternity in heavenely bliss. But scientists say there is no point to our creation and when we die, we spend eternity in nothingness and we won't even be able to remember the fleeting life we had.

This bright young lady just summed up the gist of it all . God´s truth v. Scientific truth. The divine power of life that is God v. the cult of death that is Science.

Remember, Science is 99% baloney theory to 1% science fact . On the other hand God and The Bible are 100% truth.


You can take THAT to the bank!!!!

Amen! When scientists agree with God they will always be right. And when they disagree with God they will always be wrong. End of story.

 

[moniker]

Science does not make that claim in first instance, and it makes no statement whatsoever about the involvement of God.


Wait a second...didn't you create a thread titled "creatio ex nihilo", which i guess is about God creating the universe from nothing? So what's so bad about coming from nothing in first instance?

Because God had a purpose for our creation: to spend eternity in heavenely bliss. But scientists say there is no point to our creation and when we die, we spend eternity in nothingness and we won't even be able to remember the fleeting life we had.

This bright young lady just summed up the gist of it all . God´s truth v. Scientific truth. The divine power of life that is God v. the cult of death that is Science.

Remember, Science is 99% baloney theory to 1% science fact . On the other hand God and The Bible are 100% truth.


You can take THAT to the bank!!!!

And yet you can't cite anything to actually verify your claims. Aside from your own misguided understanding of what a scientific theory actually is anyway.

Oh, and when did science claim that there is no point to life? That sounds more like philosophy and theology rather than science.

 

[The Ascetic Crusader]

Science does not make that claim in first instance, and it makes no statement whatsoever about the involvement of God.


Wait a second...didn't you create a thread titled "creatio ex nihilo", which i guess is about God creating the universe from nothing? So what's so bad about coming from nothing in first instance?

Because God had a purpose for our creation: to spend eternity in heavenely bliss. But scientists say there is no point to our creation and when we die, we spend eternity in nothingness and we won't even be able to remember the fleeting life we had.

This bright young lady just summed up the gist of it all . God´s truth v. Scientific truth. The divine power of life that is God v. the cult of death that is Science.

Remember, Science is 99% baloney theory to 1% science fact . On the other hand God and The Bible are 100% truth.


You can take THAT to the bank!!!!

Amen! When scientists agree with God they will always be right. And when they disagree with God they will always be wrong. End of story.

When young people learn in class that they (like the Universe) come form
"nothing", what impact does this have on their "worldview" ? What impact might it have on how they view "themselves" ?

What do you think Heidi ?

 

[Heidi]

[quote="The Ascetic Crusader":24ea5]

Science does not make that claim in first instance, and it makes no statement whatsoever about the involvement of God.


Wait a second...didn't you create a thread titled "creatio ex nihilo", which i guess is about God creating the universe from nothing? So what's so bad about coming from nothing in first instance?

Because God had a purpose for our creation: to spend eternity in heavenely bliss. But scientists say there is no point to our creation and when we die, we spend eternity in nothingness and we won't even be able to remember the fleeting life we had.

This bright young lady just summed up the gist of it all . God´s truth v. Scientific truth. The divine power of life that is God v. the cult of death that is Science.

Remember, Science is 99% baloney theory to 1% science fact . On the other hand God and The Bible are 100% truth.


You can take THAT to the bank!!!!

Amen! When scientists agree with God they will always be right. And when they disagree with God they will always be wrong. End of story.

When young people learn in class that they (like the Universe) come form
"nothing", what impact does this have on their "worldview" ? What impact might it have on how they view "themselves" ?

What do you think Heidi ?[/quote:24ea5]

They have no choice but to "get theirs" in life which has nothing to do with being loved or loving others. This leads to addictions, greed, gluttony and selfishness. And those who can't "get theirs" in life because they have no money or are sick and disabled either commit suicide or lead lives of misery and then they die.

Unfortunately scientists and atheists have no clue what Jesus means when he said; "For what does it profit a man to gain the whole world and forfeit his soul?" But unfortunately, they'll find out when they die what he meant.

 

[moniker]

They have no choice but to "get theirs" in life which has nothing to do with being loved or loving others. This leads to addictions, greed, gluttony and selfishness. And those who can't "get theirs" in life because they have no money or are sick and disabled either commit suicide or lead lives of misery and then they die.

Unfortunately scientists and atheists have no clue what Jesus means when he said; "For what does it profit a man to gain the whole world and forfeit his soul?" But unfortunately, they'll find out when they die what he meant.

I'm rather curious as to how you came to that philosophical outlook on life being born from AC's strawman take on science classes. Why would they not value the lives of themselves and their friends as well as the world. Since it would be all you have to embrace, improve, and leave to those you love. Thus leading to altruism, philanthropy, selflessness, and charity, for instance. Or any other number of things to be quite honest. Philosophy is probably one of the more varied fields than most others so take your pick.

Oh, and are you insinuating that scientists cannot be religious and that athiests cannot be ethical?

 

[SyntaxVorlon]

Ok, Heidi, you've confused science for something its not, probably because you don't listen to anyone who isn't wearing a thirty inch gold crucifix on their chest.

And Ascetic Crusader, who allows themselves the luxury of a computer:

Science is 99% baloney theory to 1% science fact . On the other hand God and The Bible are 100% truth.


You can take THAT to the bank!!!!

Seriously come on.
You can't get more hypocritical than that: you are sitting in front of a computer that wouldn't work if what quantum physics predicts wasn't mostly true, drinking mountain dew that wouldn't exist if chemistry wasn't getting anything right and you probably eats a corn product every now and then, engineered by thousands of years of artificial selection to taste and over the past decade engineered by biologists who had to be getting something right for it not to poison you.
Unless you literally meant 'baloney', in which case you've been vastly misinformed.

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

My Irony Meter is experiencing a meltdown.

Science is 99% baloney theory to 1% science fact . On the other hand God and The Bible are 100% truth.

YOu are sitting in front of a computer, and with the click of a mouse can transmit your thoughts around the world. How exactly do you think that all came to be. Maybe science played a little role in it. And yet you think science is totally baloney?

I
just
don't
get
it

 

[The Ascetic Crusader]

My Irony Meter is experiencing a meltdown.

Science is 99% baloney theory to 1% science fact . On the other hand God and The Bible are 100% truth.

YOu are sitting in front of a computer, and with the click of a mouse can transmit your thoughts around the world. How exactly do you think that all came to be. Maybe science played a little role in it. And yet you think science is totally baloney?

So you´re saying I have to acknowledge science´s superiority over God because I can communicate over the internet ? There is absolutely nothing and I mean nothing "scientific" about the internet . 99 to 1 ratio still stands. You´re equating communication with Science. Just like that other pseudo- scientist who posted that the printing press was a "scientific invention". Smoke n mirrors.

That´s what I mean by Science ( I guess we can also add most scientists too) being 99% full of baloney theory at a measly 1% science fact.

 

[ArtGuy]

Oh my God it hurts make the stupid stop please oh please oh please.

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

So you´re saying I have to acknowledge science´s superiority over God because I can communicate over the internet ?

It's not very honest to put words in people's mouths. It is not very smart to put words in people's mouths when everything they have said is on record. Now please show me where I said anything about science's superiority over God.

There is absolutely nothing and I mean nothing "scientific" about the internet .
99 to 1 ratio still stands. You´re equating communication with Science. Just like that other pseudo- scientist who posted that the printing press was a "scientific invention". Smoke n mirrors.

Well how do you think this technology came to be in front of your face? Random chance perhaps?

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

That's one for http://www.fstdt.com/