• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

something on my mind

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
Common ancestry of species is a verifiable, demonstrable empirical genetic fact.
You reject this verifiable empirical fact, because it isn't compatible with your religious belief.

Please don't jump to conclusions.

The Bible doesn't say how he created all the animals or vegetation.... just that He created it.

So, where it is empirical and verifiable, I have no questions. Where it is a hypothesis but not empirically verified, I don't take it as gospel.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
Please don't jump to conclusions.

The Bible doesn't say how he created all the animals or vegetation.... just that He created it.

So, where it is empirical and verifiable, I have no questions. Where it is a hypothesis but not empirically verified, I don't take it as gospel.
I'm not jumping to conclusions. Just speaking from past experience of encounters with you on the subject of biology.

Nevertheless, you just made my point... You said "The Bible doesn't say how he created all the animals or vegetation.... just that He created it."

By that, you clearly imply that whatever (you understand) that the bible is saying, will always take precedence over whatever science has to say.
In that sentence, you just acknowledged what I said: you accept science, as long as you feel it is compatible with your religious beliefs. The second it isn't, you reject the science.

That ties into my last point in my previous post:

No, science doesn't require you to break with god / religion.
But certain incarnations of religion most certainly will require you to break with certain sciences.

As per your own acknowledgement.
 

lewisnotmiller

Grand Hat
Staff member
Premium Member
I'm not jumping to conclusions. Just speaking from past experience of encounters with you on the subject of biology.

Nevertheless, you just made my point... You said "The Bible doesn't say how he created all the animals or vegetation.... just that He created it."

By that, you clearly imply that whatever (you understand) that the bible is saying, will always take precedence over whatever science has to say.
In that sentence, you just acknowledged what I said: you accept science, as long as you feel it is compatible with your religious beliefs. The second it isn't, you reject the science.

That ties into my last point in my previous post:

No, science doesn't require you to break with god / religion.
But certain incarnations of religion most certainly will require you to break with certain sciences.

As per your own acknowledgement.

Wait a minute...science is at odds with a belief in God as the origin of abiogenesis?

Of course certain religious beliefs contradict science...but others don't.
So in terms of the OP, what's your take?
And why would you pick up a post that's actually trying to address the OP, and take it to task based on your memory, and the general point that some religious beliefs contradict science?
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
Wait a minute...science is at odds with a belief in God as the origin of abiogenesis?

Well, in the post I was referring specifically to evolution.
But sure, if and when science discovers how abiogenesis works on a chemical level without any "outside help", then that would be at odds with the idea that a god came down from the sky and manufactured life.

Just like evolution is at odds with a god that comes down from the sky to conjure up new species.
Just like the sciences dealing with storms and tides is at adds with gods like Poseidon.

Of course certain religious beliefs contradict science...but others don't.
So in terms of the OP, what's your take?

Like I said:
It seems to me that science doesn't require abandoning / breaking with god(s) in general.
But it certainly is at odds with some versions of gods.

The more "interventionist" the god, the more science will be at odds with it.
The more "deistic" the god, the less science will be at odds with it.

And why would you pick up a post that's actually trying to address the OP, and take it to task based on your memory, and the general point that some religious beliefs contradict science?

Because I felt the poster wasn't being honest / accurate about his position.
It's simply not correct to state that one is "fine with science", while in reality one is rejecting the unified field theory of the biological sciences.

And I have psychological problems with leaving (what I perceive to be) BS unchallenged. :p
 
Top