Jump to content

Whose fault was it? Romans Or Jews


Recommended Posts

quote:

Originally posted by Darkling:

Can an Ant understand how an automobile works?
God has no beginning and not end,
we don't understand this just as the and will never understand the automobile. Just because we don't understand something doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

Prove it......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 101
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

quote:

Originally posted by Jaguar:

(science)...

It's NOT religion....

I never said that Science was religion, what I said is that when you make asumptions upon assumptions about evolution without the facts to back them up, then it almost becomes LIKE a religion to the beleiver. So I am the "Religious" Zealot, and you are the "Evolutionist" Zelot. LOL

Look you said it yourself, evolution is the "Best explaination of what happened" and so to you it's a fact. You beleive even though there's no conclusive proof.

Just as there's no conclusive proof that there is a God and that God is the one who made everything, pretty much from nothing.

So If I were to say to you, no God is the Best explaination of how we came to be, then without proof, you would say that I am wrong and you and other "Evolutionist" are right.

Again, neither one of us knows FOR SURE. But that doesn't stop you from thinking that I am silly for believing what I do and vice versa.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

for a good understanding of why God created the universe and us, do a study on Ephesians. Quite interesting to see how we all play into His plan.

Jag, a clarification please, Science may look at evidence first but all men have presuppositions and unless you are conscious of them they WILL bias your conclusion. This also applies to religion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Jaguar:

quote:

Originally posted by Darkling:

Can an Ant understand how an automobile works?
God has no beginning and not end,
we don't understand this just as the and will never understand the automobile. Just because we don't understand something doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

Prove it......


You first... Man evolved from Apes .. PROVE IT.. LOL
Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Darkling:

You first... Man evolved from Apes .. PROVE IT.. LOL

Sorry, since man did NOT EVOLVE FROM apes, I can't...

That was very sad, if you actually believe that evolution states that man evolved from the ape, you are clueless about evolution.

Thanks for playing.........

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wish I could explain the "proof" that you require Jag, and in reality what has happened in my life could be construed as a series of coincidences...

But looking back over the last few years of my life... I have found a simple grace and understanding of why things happened as they did and a look towards where things go from here.

And I haven't tried to say that Evolution in it's watered-down definition isn't applicable... because it simply means adaptation. But it's naive to think that just because someone has faith they would be living in caves. Just look at the Founding Fathers, and America as it was when it looked to God for guidance - and America now as it looks for moral relativism and scientific application in every aspect of life for guidance.

In the end, through the eyes of science we are simply guinea pigs - nothing that makes us what we are matters... in the end according to the scientific world view, the experiments that the Nazis and the Japanese performed on prisoners were not right or wrong - it was just science.

If the application of science is the boundary by which we apply our understanding of life - I fear for our future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Eclipse:

Jag, a clarification please, Science may look at evidence first but all men have presuppositions and unless you are conscious of them they WILL bias your conclusion. This also applies to religion.

That is why we have peer review, NO hypothesis can become a theory without a THOROUGH double checking by his peers, and there are as many different suppositions as there are people, so the presuppositions get weeded out in the peer review process.

If someone tells you that it's a theory, but has not been peer reviewed or published in any scientific journals, then they are lying to you.

Such as the "Theory" of intelligent design.

At most, it MAY be a hypothesis, but it most definitely is NOT a theory, it has never been published in ANY mainstream journal, as a matter of fact it has never been given to a journal TO publish. It has NEVER been peer reviewed, and they will not allow it to be.

Interesting that. they came up with the ID theory, and immediately went public with it, created a foundation, a website, but NEVER gave it to a scientific journal to be published, they created their own, never was it available for Peer review, they just got the scientists that agreed with them, about 4, and brought them into the foundation, and call that peer review.

Does that answer your question?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Darkling:

quote:

Originally posted by Jaguar:

(science)...

It's NOT religion....

I never said that Science was religion, what I said is that when you make asumptions upon assumptions about evolution without the facts to back them up, then it almost becomes LIKE a religion to the beleiver. So I am the "Religious" Zealot, and you are the "Evolutionist" Zelot. LOL

Look you said it yourself, evolution is the "Best explaination of what happened" and so to you it's a fact. You beleive even though there's no conclusive proof.

Just as there's no conclusive proof that there is a God and that God is the one who made everything, pretty much from nothing.

So If I were to say to you, no God is the Best explaination of how we came to be, then without proof, you would say that I am wrong and you and other "Evolutionist" are right.

Again, neither one of us knows FOR SURE. But that doesn't stop you from thinking that I am silly for believing what I do and vice versa.


I blieve that you are silly trying to fight science with religion, they are 2 different things.

By trying to discredit science, you are in fact discrediting yourselves.

It's fine with me, I couldn't care less, but the fact is, that the theories that science has, cannot be fought with religion.

Throw your fits all you want, but you just discredit yourselves, not science....

And what part of "it is the best explanation for the evidence we have" states FACT? What part of that statement is concrete and NOTHING will change it.

You need to get a grip man!!

[ 03-02-2004, 04:44 PM: Message edited by: Jaguar ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by $iLk:

I wish I could explain the "proof" that you require Jag, and in reality what has happened in my life could be construed as a series of coincidences...

But looking back over the last few years of my life... I have found a simple grace and understanding of why things happened as they did and a look towards where things go from here.

And I haven't tried to say that Evolution in it's watered-down definition isn't applicable... because it simply means adaptation. But it's naive to think that just because someone has faith they would be living in caves. Just look at the Founding Fathers, and America as it was when it looked to God for guidance - and America now as it looks for moral relativism and scientific application in every aspect of life for guidance.

In the end, through the eyes of science we are simply guinea pigs - nothing that makes us what we are matters... in the end according to the scientific world view, the experiments that the Nazis and the Japanese performed on prisoners were not right or wrong - it was just science.

If the application of science is the boundary by which we apply our understanding of life - I fear for our future.

Again, you guys are misunderstanding my intentions here.

I believe that religion is important for a moral base for society, and to limit science somewhat on a morality ground.

But when religion fights science because of some of it's conclusions, conclusions that are actually quite fluid and can change, but only if REAL evidence is brought to light, then I have to wonder what religion is doing....

Religion, by fighting science so much, in fact discredits religion more then anything else.

Religion is a necessity, WE HAVE to have it, for a moral base if nothing else, but if religion continues to dash itself upon the rocks of scientific discovery, it will actually destroy it's own credibility in the process, and that's just sad...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My answer to that would simply be that - as you've admitted yourself Science doesn't claim to have the answers... it's merely a testing ground of various things that we learn and an attempt to apply them to better ourselves. Fine and dandy - but when people attempt to discredit religion outright as opposed to understanding what scripture is and isn't - much like your complaint of people not understanding what science is and isn't - it isn't too cool.

Not once have I disagreed that science is useful, or not beneficial. And I haven't done more than state the basis for my religious beliefs and that to a certain point these things cross. Whenever science begins to assume facts that can't be proven over religious statements which also can't be scientifically proven is where I have my only problem.

The basis of the matter is that neither evolution nor religion can be scientifically "proven" considering that no scientists were around to view either in an impartial and factual view.

Science is science, religion is religion... and from a lot of what I've read, both sides of the debate get rather defensive as if all their ideals are going to be demolished if one side comes out on top. I haven't read anything that scientifically proves to me either - and I also haven't read anything that either side has written that truly threatens the other. This debate has raged back and forth, not only here but on other forums and discussions and scientific communities across the world, and it's important for all of us to take a step back and realize it's not going to end here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In all honesty $iLk, to scientists that debate has been over for quite a while.

The only people who debate the validity of evolution as a scientific theory, and as being as close to what actually happened as we have evidence for, are religious people who feel threatened by it.

Evolution is not the contestable hotbed debate that some religious organizations claim it is.

The debate in scientific circles is long over, it is now the mechanism that is in debate.

As far as science is concerned, evolution happened, how it happened, that is the question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:


Originally posted by Jaguar:

quote:

Originally posted by Eclipse:

Jag, a clarification please, Science may look at evidence first but all men have presuppositions and unless you are conscious of them they WILL bias your conclusion. This also applies to religion.


That is why we have peer review, NO hypothesis can become a theory without a THOROUGH double checking by his peers, and there are as many different suppositions as there are people, so the presuppositions get weeded out in the peer review process.

If someone tells you that it's a theory, but has not been peer reviewed or published in any scientific journals, then they are lying to you.

Such as the "Theory" of intelligent design.

At most, it MAY be a hypothesis, but it most definitely is NOT a theory, it has never been published in ANY mainstream journal, as a matter of fact it has never been given to a journal TO publish. It has NEVER been peer reviewed, and they will not allow it to be.

Interesting that. they came up with the ID theory, and immediately went public with it, created a foundation, a website, but NEVER gave it to a scientific journal to be published, they created their own, never was it available for Peer review, they just got the scientists that agreed with them, about 4, and brought them into the foundation, and call that peer review.

Does that answer your question?


yes, your original post sounded like you were discounting presuppositions.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Jaguar:

Evolution is not the contestable hotbed debate that some religious organizations claim it is.

Hate to burst your bubble, but about half the population doesn't believe in Evolution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Darkling:

quote:

Originally posted by Jaguar:

Evolution is not the contestable hotbed debate that some religious organizations claim it is.

Hate to burst your bubble, but about half the population doesn't believe in Evolution.


Why do you always leave stuff out when you quote my posts?

The entire in context quote was and is.

quote:

Evolution is not the contestable hotbed debate that some religious organizations claim it is.

The debate in scientific circles is long over, it is now the mechanism that is in debate.

As far as science is concerned, evolution happened, how it happened, that is the question.


Do I really care what a bunch of half educated citizens that wouldn't know what science was if it bit them in the butt believe?

Come on Darkling, can we get real here?

Science is NOT a Democracy of the citizens. Science doesn't CARE what a small majority of the citizens of this half educated country believe.

Science knows what it knows, it's not gonna ask for a vote.....

Good grief....

Burst what bubble? you actually think that I believe that this country has educated people in it? Look at my past posts, you will see that I have absolutely NO faith in the education level of the American People.

because if you took a poll of scientists and researchers, 99% of them understand that evolution is what happened, and they use that theory in their daily research and experiments.

Evolution is a GIVEN in science, in scientific circles, the only circles that matter, the debate has been over for years....

Religion can go ahead and win over a majority of half educated citizens, it really doesn't matter, because the scientists and educated citizens are the ones that actually make a difference in this country, and will make sure that science continues on it's merry way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest rtoolooze

Soooo.... you mean only scientists, (the ones who believe in evolution) and the people who believe in those scientists and their theories are the only people in this country who matter and make a difference,

and those who believe in religion and creation are half educated people who are wrong, don't really matter, and somehow don't have a clue?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From what I've seen - nothing has been proven and it's most certainly not a given considering it can't be proven.

I believe in adaptation and limited chanaged a-la microevolution I suppose. Macroevolution has not been proven. There are many facts that can support this case, but then again it's all in the eye of the beholder. It means what they want it to mean until the point where they can actually prove it.

Right now they have a collection of data that happens to fit a conclusion they want and thus it's true. Up until the next piece of evidence to the contrary forces the whole theory to change.

In one part it's said that science doesn't claim to have the answers - and in another part it's considered a 'given'.

I still haven't been won over to support Macro as opposed to Micro... and I'm uncertain as to which you are a proponent of Jag?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by rtoolooze:

Soooo.... you mean only scientists, (the ones who believe in evolution) and the people who believe in those scientists and their theories are the only people in this country who matter and make a difference,

and those who believe in religion and creation are half educated people who are wrong, don't really matter, and somehow don't have a clue?

Rtoolooze, you need to read the whole thread buddy....

You can believe in creationism all you want, but trying to force science to believe it, is NOT gonna happen. Getting a majority of people in this country to believe in creationism is not gonna change sciences mind either.

I have been educated to separate religion from science.

You can believe in creationism, and if you leave the science to the scientists, I have no problem at all with it.

But, if you try and force science to come to your side, then you are fighting a losing battle.

I believe that god created everything, but at the same time I understand that science will not and cannot use that as a premise, therefore, my beliefs are probably going to be different then what sciences answers are.

It's the nature of the beast, science is science, religion is religion. If you understand that science will come up with a different answer and accept that fact, WITHOUT attacking it, then we won't have a problem.

It is a manmade, man created study, and religion, if you believe it, is made by god, therefore, the manmade is going to be limited.

Accept it, go worship or do whatever you do, and leave science be....

I have a problem with some yahoo getting all loud and obnocious and misrepresenting what a theory actually says because it somehow threatens their beliefs.

Science is science, it can't threaten ANYONES religious beliefs unless of course your religious convictions were rather weak in the first place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Faith cannot be quantified. God or His existence is beyond human understanding. Like $ilk, I guess I could explain the events in my life that led me to God as coincidences, but I know better. No one here is going to convince a non-believer who relagates spirituality to some form of moral counseling, and certainly a true beleiver with Faith will not be swayed by any amount of scientific research. I know God is the creator, and that knowlwedge alone is comfort enough for me. It matters little whether everyone believes the same, althhough I will continue to pray for those who dont, since that too is my preogative.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My .02

Sorry Jaguar, rtoolooze was right....

you had me following along and, at least, 'considering' your side here, until you basically called people who fathfully follow religious beliefs and disregard science, as 'half-wits'

I will, however, give you the benefit of the doubt in consideration of your previous posts, that maybe you were just a tad too emotional when you said that.

As far as i'm concerned, I like to think that I have enough understanding of BOTH sides to use as a guide for getting through life as best as I can.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think me and Jag have been saying the same thing... Religion is Religion and Science is Science.

But it's there where our paths (somewhat) diverge as to how much meaning or 'faith'(if you will) we put into each.

For me, science has it's uses and without a doubt has brought many advances to mankind. But regardless of what advances come - it needs to be put into perspective that it is not these advances which matter nor define who and what we are. Science has offered up no great absolute truth that gives any meaning whatsoever. It is a method. It is a tool - nothing more.

To classify religion as a crutch or a tool is false as well - for without some greater meaning in our lives we are most definitely NOT enlightened - however much technology we possess.

One could be happy and live a meaningful life in a 'cave' as it was put, and one could be miserable sitting in his futurama spaceship with nothing to look forward to in life but everyday drudgery.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Jaguar:

Why do you always leave stuff out when you quote my posts?

Because I'm trying to narrow down specifically what it is that I'm replying to. Also, by narrowing down your last comment, I tried to make a point that this world isn't run by Scientists, and just because someone isn't a scientist doesn't mean he's an idiot. Just as my wife, who is a Brilliant Pharmacists, doesn't understand beans about my database work. Does it mean she's an idiot? No. Also, I don't need several pages of postings to make my point and besides, people already read it before and they don't need to read it again. Most of the people on these boards are not as stupid as you may think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest rtoolooze

Jaguar, first, you need to calm down as you seem to think you are under some sort of attack. Where in my post did you come to that conclusion?

I'm not trying to be loud and abnoxious, and where am I trying to force science to believe in creation? I'm not against science. I love science. Its wonderful to see the advances mankind are making in "all" fields of science.

I also am not threatened by it. Far from it. In fact, science is showing me just how wonderful and complex life really is. To me, science is only scratching the surface, and the more it digs, the more it will show us that all we know and see around us had to come from an intelligent creator, with a purpose.

No, science does not threaten me, it aids me. One thing is for sure, my convictions on the truth is strong. And science is just but one thing that helps that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by rtoolooze:

I also am not threatened by it. Far from it. In fact, science is showing me just how wonderful and complex life really is. To me, science is only scratching the surface, and the more it digs, the more it will show us that all we know and see around us had to come from an intelligent creator, with a purpose.


But what if science proves the opposite. That all we attribute to a God is in fact just a natural process from a chaotic: The disordered state of unformed matter and infinite space supposed in some cosmogonic views to have existed before the ordered universe to an orderly one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...