Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
Interesting answer . . .
Indeed.
Oh wait, I thought you said "ignorant answer."
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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Interesting answer . . .
except that evolution has been witnessed, both in the lab and in the field.Interesting answer . . .
We have seen evolution though. Bacteria have become resistant to antibiotics. This probably isn't the best example, but an organism adapting to better suit it's environment, and these traits being passed down to future generations is evolution. Some species of fish have hind fins when they are in a hostile environment, but when this same species of fish is in an environment in which it isn't likely they will be eaten, they do not have hind fins. Even on an old episode of the Crocodile Hunter he found I think it was a species of snake that swims in fresh water, but the one he found was in salt water, or vice versa. It's been so long since I have actually seen that episode that I don't remember.No one has seen proof of evolution. But religion is faith in things seen. We can see the glory of God's creation.
Just the opposite. Science is faith in things unseen. No one has seen proof of evolution. But religion is faith in things seen. We can see the glory of God's creation.
I find it odd that the stronger the scientific evidence against the faith the stronger the faith, epecially amongst fundamentists.
One deals with demonstrable evidence.I believe that the difference is this: that faith is hope placed on things not seen and science is placing faith in things having been seen.
The common ground may be that the result of either brings much revelation.
thoughts?
Maybe because evolution doesn't say that the first cell came from "some chemical soup in a primordial swamp"?Wikipedia talks about the "cell theory". It says that in this SCIENTIFIC theory all cells come from existing cells. But evolution says that the first cells came from some chemical soup in a primordial swamp. So how can science have it both ways? Cells come from pre existing cells but cells came from something that was not even alive. That's how science if faith is things unseen and they twist things to suit their theories.
Exceptions
See also: Origin of life
- Viruses are considered alive by some, yet they are not made up of cells. Viruses have many features of life, but by definition of the cell theory, they are not alive.
- The first cell did not originate from a pre-existing cell. There was no exact first cell since the definition of cell is imprecise.
- Mitochondria and chloroplasts have their own genetic material, and reproduce independently from the rest of the cell.
It was a primordial soup, so to speak, but the theory is that this chemical substance contained the appropriate chemicals to jump start life. This experiment has been repeated, successfully, so many times that it has even been featured on children's science shows, such as Bill Nye The Science Guy. And more recently an experiment has produced synthetic life from this primordial soup.Wikipedia talks about the "cell theory". It says that in this SCIENTIFIC theory all cells come from existing cells. But evolution says that the first cells came from some chemical soup in a primordial swamp. So how can science have it both ways? Cells come from pre existing cells but cells came from something that was not even alive. That's how science if faith is things unseen and they twist things to suit their theories.
I believe that the difference is this: that faith is hope placed on things not seen and science is placing faith in things having been seen.
The common ground may be that the result of either brings much revelation.
thoughts?
I don't believe in a god that throws temper tantrums... just saying.Well , That was some pretty good thought provoking answers....You all know that I believe in God and the Scriptures. I also believe that science is legitimately a sure wonder and the things we've uncovered are staggering and exciting. ...When my Father worked at JPL in the 70's he was on the team of Aerospace engineers that were tasked with bringing in the first pics of mars from the Viking project-what a fascinating time! He brought some of them home and I was in love with them!. . .I love science . . .I think it is really a great thing . . .Like anything, it comes with responsibility ,I mean, we all know the horrors and great things we can do with it . . .What do you suppose would cause or effect the decisions we make about it's use?
whether to use it for good.Or for evil? Does it matter? I mean, if we are here to do as we please without any restriction to it . . I imagine it will simply just depend on How the ones who have control of it's power feel on any given day right? Based on what their own carnal self dictates ? Then the aftermath could just be explained as "we were just doing what it is in our nature to do?" Or the rewards for the "good" that was done by way of science be credited in the same manner . . .
As a Christian I perceive the same science as You do -the difference is that I ascribe the science we find to the Greater Scientist-I.E. God . . .that what we "uncover" - God Has known all the while . . .The hubble is a great example- look at some of the nebula -works of art to me!Think about how long it took just for us to even have the chance to have a glimpse at it! I think it is safe to say that God wants what even an earthbound scientist wants -Credit for His work! God states that He will not yield His glory to another! Is this so hard to understand? What if Albert Einsteins' work was attributed to another? He would throw a tantrum!
How is God different?He has feelings. He said He was a Jealous God and He would be angry if we gave glory elsewhere . . .just sayin' . . .
I would like to say also that if I were to deny science and all that it teaches (even if I actually believe it) The penalty from God would be "No Penalty" ...
but as a Christian, if I were to deny God for any reason, The penalty would be great! I would be at risk to lose imortality itself! So you see my burden don't you? I am unmovable on this . . . .as I cannot take anything from this earth with me when I die from it . . .no gold,silver,science,clothes ,house, etc. How many people in the past have taken their earthly wealth with them? answer: 0 . . . .now we know this from a few instances at least-take king tut . . .did not a man named Anthony Carter show even scientifically, that a human does not take all his precious gold with him? King Tuts stuff was all there and accounted for right? But yet those egyptians were so sure of the King taking them with him huh? just roll that around a bit and at least understand that you can safely count out the religion of the egyptians as a certain hoax-as was proven by science right? Any thoughts?
Just the opposite. Science is faith in things unseen. No one has seen proof of evolution. But religion is faith in things seen. We can see the glory of God's creation.
What do you do to "study the creator"?Heres a quick answer,
Religion is the study of the creator, Science is the study of the creation.
What do you do to "study the creator"?
Whatever religion you want really. It was just a quick answer really, didnt hit every little detail.What do you do to "study the creator"?
Religion is the study of the creator, Science is the study of the creation.
What do you do to "study the creator"?