[_ Old Earth _] religion ans science

[amram]

do they do well together. yes. does everyone here believe the same or different?

 

[WIP]

Welcome to CFnet!

I have approved your thread but would like to offer a suggestion that we move your thread to the "Christianity and Science" forum where you can get a lot more interaction on this topic. To post in there you will need to request permission. Let me know if you get permission and want me to move it.

Thanks,

WIP

 

[Classik]

Welcome to CF.net.
This is a good question. The answer is 'YES'.
God wants us to go into the naked world and clothe it - beautifying it: subdue the earth.
--
The problem is that the devil, this lunatic, has deceived many people by introducing things that seem to be true.
It takes spiritual people to understand spiritual things. Most of the stuff found in the bible are proven scientifically to be true.
--
Christianity is not laziness. Christianity is not insanity. We know God made everything, and He wants us to learn and understand how some stuff work.

 

[Sparkey]

Welcome to CF.Net
This is a good question. The answer is "No."

There are many who hold differing beliefs especially when it comes to Science and Religion.

Cordially,
~Sparrow

 

[jesus4life]

Well, GOD can use anything to show HIS POWER. What we look down on, HE may use to shut us up.

1 CORINTHIANS 1:25-31
22 Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, 23 but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, 24 but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25 For the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength.
26 Brothers and sisters, think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth. 27 But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. 28 God chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things—and the things that are not—to nullify the things that are, 29 so that no one may boast before him. 30 It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God—that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption. 31 Therefore, as it is written: “Let the one who boasts boast in the Lord.”

Science and all intelligence is delivered by GOD as a pathway to understanding things. Science and other things are the faith that needs to " see" in order to believe. Many people in the OT and NT were like that. But, JESUS presses how great it is for people who dont see and believe.

" Seeing" can get idolistic. Meaning that people will always be looking for that sign they once saw in order to understand GOD. That sign was just given by GOD for that time for that person/s to understand HIS power and what HE wanted them to do.

We see many examples of the mention of science. Though there was no name for the study of it ( evil does that because man constantly has to name things and try to have authority over something!! It's our sinful nature!!):

DANIEL 12:4
4 But you, Daniel, roll up and seal the words of the scroll until the time of the end. Many will go here and there to increase knowledge.”

LUKE 21:25
25 “There will be signs in the sun, moon and stars. On the earth, nations will be in anguish and perplexity at the roaring and tossing of the sea.

MATTHEW 2:7-9
7 Then Herod called the Magi secretly and found out from them the exact time the star had appeared. 8 He sent them to Bethlehem and said, “Go and search carefully for the child. As soon as you find him, report to me, so that I too may go and worship him.”
9 After they had heard the king, they went on their way, and the star they had seen when it rose went ahead of them until it stopped over the place where the child was. 10 When they saw the star, they were overjoyed. 11 On coming to the house, they saw the child with his mother Mary, and they bowed down and worshiped him. Then they opened their treasures and presented him with gifts of gold, frankincense and myrrh. 12 And having been warned in a dream not to go back to Herod, they returned to their country by another route.

FAITH that needs to see and faith that does not:
JOHN 20:28-29
28 Thomas said to him, “My Lord and my God!”
29 Then Jesus told him, “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”

All this intelligence and understanding of things are through GOD's power. The wrong is where humans label GOD's power. All of HIS followers were from various backgrounds and jobs. They knew they had jobs, but they knew the end all was GOD ( in the OT), then later in the NT GOD, JESUS, and HOLY SPIRIT.

Deuteronomy 4:15-20
15 You saw no form of any kind the day the LORD spoke to you at Horeb out of the fire. Therefore watch yourselves very carefully, 16 so that you do not become corrupt and make for yourselves an idol, an image of any shape, whether formed like a man or a woman, 17 or like any animal on earth or any bird that flies in the air, 18 or like any creature that moves along the ground or any fish in the waters below. 19 And when you look up to the sky and see the sun, the moon and the stars—all the heavenly array—do not be enticed into bowing down to them and worshiping things the LORD your God has apportioned to all the nations under heaven. 20 But as for you, the LORD took you and brought you out of the iron-smelting furnace, out of Egypt, to be the people of his inheritance, as you now are.

COLOSSIANS 2:16-19
16 Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. 17 These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ. 18 Do not let anyone who delights in false humility and the worship of angels disqualify you. Such a person also goes into great detail about what they have seen; they are puffed up with idle notions by their unspiritual mind. 19 They have lost connection with the head, from whom the whole body, supported and held together by its ligaments and sinews, grows as God causes it to grow.


jesus4life

 

[stovebolts]

Hello and welcome.

Yes, I do believe that religion and science can complement each other very well.

Here's a link you may enjoy!

http://www.answersingenesis.org/

 

[Aardverk]

do they do well together..... does everyone here believe the same....

Welcome amram. I would say that the answer to both of your questions is 'no'.

As Stovebolts says, they complement each other. One is spiritual and subject to faith, often with a specific interpretation of history, the other just deals in facts. Unfortunately an expert in one sphere is rarely an expert in the other - even if he thinks he is.

Sometimes science gets it wrong - maybe we are about to find out it we can exceed the speed of light and sometimes religion gets it wrong - there is no God called Mithras, or Venus, or Osiris (Remember it's a Christian forum ;)).

 

[SwordMaster]

amram, hello!

This is my first post, and I am glad that it is right up my alley!

The answer to your question is yes, they compliment one another as long as we are speaking of Christianity, I cannot say concerning other systems of faith. To date, there is not one thing in science (that is not doctored by men to make it seem otherwise) that goes against the Scriptures written by Yahweh through the hands of men.

Not that it means much to some, but I have spent 10 years studying evolutionary doctrine and the "smoke and mirrors" and shifting definitions used in order to make TOE seem what it is not. In truth, it is a science of adaptation taken far beyond what the limitations of the facts allow. Any other fields of science (such as those dealing with the age of the universe and of the earth) are based upon so much assumption that they are not reliable for anything except great science fiction stories!

Blessings to you!

 

[Classik]

amram, hello!

This is my first post, and I am glad that it is right up my alley!

The answer to your question is yes, they compliment one another as long as we are speaking of Christianity, I cannot say concerning other systems of faith.

welcome!
You are right: they compiment...:nod

Your username:D Did you borrow King David's sword?:dunno

 

[Aardverk]

This is my first post, and I am glad that it is right up my alley!

The answer to your question is yes, they compliment one another as long as we are speaking of Christianity..... there is not one thing in science...... that goes against the Scriptures ...... I have spent 10 years studying evolutionary doctrine and the "smoke and mirrors" and shifting definitions used in order to make TOE seem what it is not. In truth, it is a science of adaptation taken far beyond what the limitations of the facts allow. Any other fields of science..... are based upon so much assumption that they are not reliable.....

Hello SwordMaster and welcome.

In response to your post - 'WOW'!

Glad to meet someone with novel views of science. I look forward to debating with you in an appropriate thread.

 

[jasoncran]

is there a reason aadverk that you misquoted him? go back read what he said and then read what you posted.

please at least quote the guy without twisting his words.

 

[Classik]

is there a reason aadverk that you misquoted him? go back read what he said and then read what you posted.

please at least quote the guy without twisting his words.

Genuis

 

[Aardverk]

is there a reason aadverk that you misquoted him? go back read what he said and then read what you posted.

please at least quote the guy without twisting his words.

IF I did, I sincerely apologize SwordMaster.

Come now jasoncran, you must pay more attention before issuing insults. What I did was edit the statement down to extract the true meaning of it without repeating the whole of SwordMaster's post. This is a VERY common thing that we all do and I usually wield words with moderate skill. Also, I always endeavor to be fair, impartial and factual.

I deliberately inserted '.....' wherever I deleted anything so that people would realize what I had done and could check the original words if they wished. You don't appear to have you bothered to do that jasoncran.

I have not 'twisted' anything, added anything or changed any words nor have I re-ordered them, I have simply deleted a few words that, gramatically, were superfluous to the true meaning of the statement. It may of course not be what SwordMaster intended to say but we have no way of knowing that. He could indeed have mistyped.

I would of course be delighted if you could point out where I twisted anything jasoncran; I am always keen to learn - from anbody. Clarity from you would of course be useful because I certainly can not see anything twisted or misrepresented. Go have another look.

Welcome again SwordMaster.

 

[Classik]

Glad to meet someone with novel views of science.

:dunno

 

[MarbleShooter]

amram, hello!

This is my first post, and I am glad that it is right up my alley!

The answer to your question is yes, they compliment one another as long as we are speaking of Christianity, I cannot say concerning other systems of faith. To date, there is not one thing in science (that is not doctored by men to make it seem otherwise) that goes against the Scriptures written by Yahweh through the hands of men.

Not that it means much to some, but I have spent 10 years studying evolutionary doctrine and the "smoke and mirrors" and shifting definitions used in order to make TOE seem what it is not. In truth, it is a science of adaptation taken far beyond what the limitations of the facts allow. Any other fields of science (such as those dealing with the age of the universe and of the earth) are based upon so much assumption that they are not reliable for anything except great science fiction stories!

Blessings to you!

Hello Swordmaster. Welcome to the forum and I hope you have a good time here. May I trouble you to explain a tad more in detail what you mean by studying evolutionary biology? Was this formal study or was this mostly internet based? I ask mainly out of interest, and I am also quite interested in what you think the smoke and mirrors are in evolutionary biology? Once again, I hope you enjoy your posting.

 

[Aardverk]

:dunno

Words may help you get a more useful answer Classik but I presume you are making a mute, sarcastic comment about this:

Any other fields of science (such as those dealing with the age of the universe and of the earth) are based upon so much assumption that they are not reliable for anything except great science fiction stories!

Note those words please, "any other fields of science....are not reliable for anything...."

I have no idea what your field of expertise is Classik but many scientific fields are extremely reliable. If they were not reliable, our understanding would be flawed more than it actually is and technology based on hundreds of scientific principles would not work.

I do hope you are not going to tell me that the Earth is only 4,000 years old!

 

[Classik]

I do hope you are not going to tell me that the Earth is only 4,000 years old!

[SIZE="+5"](FCB:D 9:0 4L' Hospitalet)[/SIZE]
My club just ended a game some minutes ago. It was a heartless demolition. I dedicate the victory to you.

---
I was actually looking at your use of 'novel' in your post.

I do hope you are not going to tell me that the Earth is only 4,000 years old!

And the varying experimental results so scary:shocked.

 

[jasoncran]

IF I did, I sincerely apologize SwordMaster.

Come now jasoncran, you must pay more attention before issuing insults. What I did was edit the statement down to extract the true meaning of it without repeating the whole of SwordMaster's post. This is a VERY common thing that we all do and I usually wield words with moderate skill. Also, I always endeavor to be fair, impartial and factual.

I deliberately inserted '.....' wherever I deleted anything so that people would realize what I had done and could check the original words if they wished. You don't appear to have you bothered to do that jasoncran.

I have not 'twisted' anything, added anything or changed any words nor have I re-ordered them, I have simply deleted a few words that, gramatically, were superfluous to the true meaning of the statement. It may of course not be what SwordMaster intended to say but we have no way of knowing that. He could indeed have mistyped.

I would of course be delighted if you could point out where I twisted anything jasoncran; I am always keen to learn - from anbody. Clarity from you would of course be useful because I certainly can not see anything twisted or misrepresented. Go have another look.

Welcome again SwordMaster.

on that note.

inference isnt science that is what swordmaster means.

if i know that you a propensity to do a crime and you happen to be near a crime scene or was there the first day, and have the gun.

and i say by inference you did it, without any evidence of you at the seen that is exactly what they do.

case in point, how do we know what the first cell was like? we dont have any proof of that and also no actuall location.


the old assumption that bacteria were resistance to medicine by evolution to it yet now is debunked

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v477/n7365/full/nature10388.html


how do they know that the it was always the same as far as age?

so you honeslty think that scientists are so holy as a group they dont lie or missread or make mistakes, that science corrects it self?

debunked right now
from here

http://www.icr.org/article/6497/

"To err is human," according to the 18th-century English poet Alexander Pope.
Human error is not uncommon, even in the area of scientific investigations. But the number of scientific papers that are published and later retracted has increased exponentially within just the past decade.
A retraction, according to a recent news feature in the journal Nature, is "science's ultimate post-publication punishment…the official declaration that a paper is so flawed that it must be withdrawn from the literature."1
"In the early 2000s, only about 30 retraction notices appeared annually. This year, the Web of Science is on track to index more than 400…even though the total number of papers published has risen by only 44% over the past decade," according to the report.1
Of those retractions, about 28 percent were due to "honest error" and 11 percent were for studies that had irreproducible results. However, a surprising 44 percent of retractions were due to misconduct, which further broke down into 11 percent for falsification/fabrication, 17 percent for self-plagiarism, and 16 percent for plagiarism.
The Web of Science, the online academic citation index of Thomson Reuters, issued almost 30 retraction notices for Nature papers between 2001 and 2010. Pubmed issued over 40.
In 2009, a study published in the online journal PLoS ONE examined a host of survey data and found that about 2 percent of scientists admitted to falsifying research at least once and up to 34 percent admitted other questionable research practices. Additionally, about 14 percent had observed their colleagues falsifying data and up to 72 percent had witnessed the use of questionable practices.
"Considering that these surveys ask sensitive questions and have other limitations, it appears likely that this is a conservative estimate of the true prevalence of scientific misconduct," the report stated.2
These numbers are difficult to ignore, particularly in the case of politically charged research areas. In 2004, South Korean stem cell researcher Woo Suk Hwang claimed to have cloned a human embryo and taken stem cells from it. The following year, he said he had created 11 stem-cell lines. Then in 2006, investigations by both scientists and media found that all his data were faked.3
But in the case of non-high profile cases, the reports don't necessarily disappear, and future studies can still cite the papers even after their retractions. Nature reported how one University of Missouri researcher found that 235 articles retracted between 1966 and 1996 appeared in other papers' citations "more than 2,000 times after their withdrawal, with fewer than 8% of the citations acknowledging the retraction."1
And if that's just scientific reliance on faulty data from 1966-96, what about the theories of Charles Darwin that have pervaded scientific thinking for the past 150 years? Later discoveries are continually refuting his speculations, like his "evolutionary tree,"4 and yet many scientists still accept and support evolution.
With this many errors, and more disturbingly the acknowledged presence of falsified and fabricated data, how can the field of science maintain any semblance of infallibility or impartiality, especially when used in concert with political agendas?5
References

1. <LI style="FONT-SIZE: xx-small">Van Noorden, R. 2011. Science publishing: The trouble with retractions. Nature. 478 (7367): 26-28. <LI style="FONT-SIZE: xx-small">Fanelli, D. 2009. How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Survey Data. PLoS ONE. 4 (5): e5738. <LI style="FONT-SIZE: xx-small">Cyranoski, D. Rise and fall. Nature News. Posted on nature.com January 11, 2006, accessed November 21, 2011. <LI style="FONT-SIZE: xx-small">Thomas, B. Darwin's Evolutionary Tree 'Annihilated.' ICR News. Posted on icr.org February 3, 2009, accessed November 22, 2011.
2. Stem cells, global warming, and teaching evolution in public schools are some of the controversial areas that have called for political intervention based on partisan scientific perspectives.

* Ms. Dao is Assistant Editor at the Institute for Creation Research.
Article posted on November 28, 2011.

 

[jasoncran]

so before you say that they lie heres link one.

http://www.nature.com/news/2011/111005/full/478026a.html

its all there sometimes one has to pay for the link to see it.

science is a human endeavor and like all instutions vulnerable to the same close mindeness.

there no such thing as a free thinker.when one has decided what is true you in your mind eliminates another possibility. otherwise these debates are totally pointless.

oh i verify some things you have already said in another thread.

i found that wanting. i have friends that were there and know.

 

[Aardverk]

science is a human endeavor and like all instutions vulnerable to the same close mindeness.

Vulnerable to - yes, ruled by - no. Scientific peer review virtually eliminates the damage caused by closed minds. Minds are like parachutes - they only function when open (Thomas Dewar).

there no such thing as a free thinker.when one has decided what is true you in your mind eliminates another possibility.

No, that is completely wrong jasoncran. Many of us are perfectly capable of intellectual honesty and even enjoy being proven wrong for its educational value. I love learning; it keeps my mind active. Not everybody thinks they have all the answers. I am always doing that which I can not do, in order that I may learn how to do it (Picasso)

oh i verify some things you have already said in another thread. i found that wanting. i have friends that were there and know.

In that case I would be very interested to hear where I was wrong - for the educational value. As for your friends being 'there', whichever 'there' you mean, just bear in mind that I may well be old enough to be your great grandfather. I have certainly been travelling the world for well over twice your lifetime, not just a brief overseas posting. Events that you may have read about, I remember happening which makes me well aware of some recent pathetic attempts to re-write unpalatable history.

Why on earth do you keep making these vague, insulting accusations and then backing out of them jasoncran? You accused me of twisting SwordMaster's words but then deliberately avoided supporting your false allegation. Now you vaguely accuse me of being wrong in another thread but you avoid saying where! That obviously undermines your credibility but you do it time and time again. Engage brain before operating the keyboard please. What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know, it's what we know for sure that just ain't so (Mark Twain)