Science and Religion

[Theloon]

I am not allowed to post a rebuttal to posts in this forum on threads I didn’t start, but I read this response below and felt a strong need to comment on this posts content.

“There are some Christians that are fearful of science that is true...because they think science works to undermine God when actually science is just another expression of God...science is just now catching up with the bible! It pains me to see some Christians feeling science is somehow anti-God when their is plenty of science in the bible. I have no conflict with science and God...usually when their is a conflict I only have to wait for science to 'discover' something new and 'catch up' with the bible...

While the bible never changes its mind...science does.

Like for instance...when the first telescope was invented they thought the bible was wrong and the stars could be counted....(the bible says their are so many they cannot be counted) ..then they invented a stronger lens! And suddenly the sky was filled with countless stars! Proving indeed the bible was right...we see this happening all the time..its just science takes time and discovers new evidences all the time that it couldn't before because of the lack in technology. The bible isn't written like a modern day science book of course..doesn't use the words we use now...but still the science is there.

As far as Hitler and Stalin go...yes alot of what they did was based on Darwin's theory of evolution...that some are 'inferior' people and through the process of natural selection would supposedly die off...only Hitler decided to not wait on natural selection but do it himself... If you notice it wasn't just the Jews he had killed (though he did see the Jews as lessen human being), but the handicapped, the homosexuals..anyone that didn't fit his idea of the stronger species. He also went on to try to make the perfect race...you know the blond hair blue eye perfect race of human beings...and force couples to engage in sex and have children that meant his requirements...he took Darwin's ideas to the logical conclusion basically...

And yes the studies on whether a person is born gay or not are faulty...no gay gene has been found.. “

There’s a few different elements touched on in this post that I want to comment on…

To start, this has little to do with the content of your post, but is a huge pet-peeve of mine. There is a large difference between the meaning of their, there, and they’re please use them correctly!

Moving on, when was there a hypothesis submitted by ‘science’ that the stars can or can’t be counted? I’d submit that the stars can be counted but not at this moment in time due to not being equipped with the knowledge of the limits of the universe as well as the equipment to see that far. Over time as advancements are made in technology to further understand space it is possible to get to a point where the stars can be counted.

According to you the bible says the stars can’t be counted, but how is that possible? According to Christians isn’t god the true author of the bible? If that’s the case how can he in one instance create the stars and the heavens in one day and then tell man that there are so many he can’t count them. If he had the capacity to make all of the stars, especially if he did it in one day, then god would certainly have the capacity to count all of them. Thus making this passage in the bible, like many others, make no sense when you think about it.

You make a statement that the bible doesn’t change its’ mind but science does… I completely disagree with this comment. Science by definition doesn’t have the capacity to change its’ mind since its mind doesn’t exist. What I mean is that data produced from experiments can me interrupted by humans different and lead to different hypothesizes or conclusions but science as a study can’t change, does that make sense?

I agree that the bible for all intents and purposes hasn’t changed over the years but just as data has been interrupted differently in “science” so have items in the bible. In 325 AD the council of Nicea met to discuss many things, one of which was which books should or should not be included in the bible. You may say that was because many people wrote stories which had no relevance to the teachings of Jesus, or something of the like, which is a fair argument but why does the same not happen in reverse for scientists? Like many of the false books in the bible at the time “science” has many people who manipulate findings or lie about their results to push personal agendas. In my opinion both are unchanging entities themselves but are preserved to change based on the interpretation by people.

Also, you discuss the Holocaust, Hilters theory if you will, of the Holocaust was from Eugenics. A much broader way of thinking of Eugenics is Darwin’s theory of evolution not the other way around as you have stated. The reason this is important is because forms of Eugenics have been around for centuries prior to Darwin formulizing his theory of evolution. A number of wars have been fought over ethnic cleansing based on religion; many of such wars were sanctioned by the pope himself, the extension of god on earth. Just to play devil’s advocate you could fairly state that WWII was just a modern day ‘Crusades’.

In that same paragraph you reference Hilter forcing people to procreate children if they fit the criteria of the ‘perfect race’. This practice had been done in many places across the globe including the United States. The largest, strongest slaves were forced to have children based on the idea that if they were big they would make big offspring. This was started well before Darwin released his book on evolution by the way…

Finally, to say that people aren’t born gay is ignorant; genetics is a new unfolding area of science which makes constant progress. As time moves forward maybe we can say that there is or isn’t a “gay gene”, but you certainly aren’t equipped with any knowledge in the subject matter to make such a claim at this point in time. Furthermore, I find it hilarious and hypocritical that you say because we haven’t found a gay gene there isn’t one. What evidence have we found that god is real?

[Bandit]

Hello Theloon,

I've been busy the last two days and just saw your two threads in this folder. I just approved them. I hope you find the discussions interesting, and I may jump in when time allows. (It is amazing how busy one be around Christmas time; I almost need a holiday from the holidays! But it is a good busy.)

[Luke34]

You are almost entirely correct and the original post you quoted from is ridiculous. "Darwinian evolution led to Nazism" is the most tedious argument in the creationist playbook because a) It's only used by people who have no actual idea what Darwin's theory is and b) Even if it were true, that doesn't mean it's incorrect, it would mean Hitler used it for evil purposes. It would be like saying that, since racism is evil, it is not in fact true that people have different skin colors. It doesn't work that way.

Anyway, good post, and good point about "science" not being an entity.

[MyRock]

According to you the bible says the stars can’t be counted, but how is that possible? According to Christians isn’t god the true author of the bible? If that’s the case how can he in one instance create the stars and the heavens in one day and then tell man that there are so many he can’t count them. If he had the capacity to make all of the stars, especially if he did it in one day, then god would certainly have the capacity to count all of them. Thus making this passage in the bible, like many others, make no sense when you think about it

God certainly knows how many stars there are in the universe, but we do not as God hasn't revealed it to us. Now we are able to map the known universe and that may lead to us being able to count them. That doesn't seem much of a contradiction to me, because God was using the picture of the stars in the sky and the grains of sand in the world as a analogy of a vast number of people.

Hebrews 11:12 talks about the amount of God's people that came from the Abrahamic line through Sarah.

Happy Christmas

[thomasmind]

I always love generalizations
Oh wait, Sorry for bumping this ancient thread
I am a Christian, and, oh an energy scientist. I did not know I was supposed to be afraid of science.
Problem is that Atheists do not even know how science works. The foundation of science is this:

A belief forms a question which becomes your hypothesis. This hypothesis is the foundation of what you want to find out for example; “I believe the heat is leaving the building through the windows 40 feet above the factory floor.” This is energy wasted. I believe the heat is.. is comparable to saying “I believe in God.”

The point in fact is that if I had no belief, I would already know the heat is leaving through the building windows. I would have no reason to find out. This would be saying “I know the heat is leaving through the windows.” Which is comparable to saying “I know there is no God”.

I then go up to the windows and do a simple experiment with a piece of tinsel and see that the cold air is coming in through the windows. With belief I am now capable of changing my Hypothesis. “Why is the cold air coming in through the windows.” If I had no belief I would not even be able to get this far would I? I would have walked away without belief and never even asked any question.

I find out that the exhaust in the building is too powerful and is sucking in cold air. I know that cold air is more dense and a higher pressure so the heat is not even getting to the windows much less leaving the building through the windows. In essence a belief, not a dismissive attitude is required throughout all of science.

This example is part of an actual building environmental energy and health study I did a while back and you can view it at:
https://sites.google.com/site/thomas...ronmentalstudy

In the end the VP of this company does not understand any of it and knows for a fact, still incorrectly, that the heat is leaving through the windows. He had the company install plastic on the windows, which blew off the following year. In the end, as a scientist I really wish the majority of the Atheist community would stop referring to the scientific community when they really do not seem to understand how science even functions. I also wish they would stop asking questions to which they do not want answers to in the first place because they already seem to know everything.

[gringo300]

He also went on to try to make the perfect race...you know the blond hair blue eye perfect race of human beings...

the Nordic race

I've seen this worded this way many times before. Sigh.

He didn't try to "create" the Nordic race.

The Nordic race already existed.

The idea was that large numbers of Nordic people had interbred with non-Nordic races.

The idea was to reverse this.

Another part of the idea was that Nordic people were superior to all non-Nordic people.

A huge proportion of White people aren't Nordic. I'm White, but I'm pretty sure I'm at least predominantly not Nordic.

I have a problem here with Nordic people looking down on me. I don't think I'm inferior to them.

White supremacy and Nordic supremacy are two separate concepts. A lot of people don't seem to understand that.

[A Seeker]

I always love generalizations

Problem is that Atheists do not even know how science works.

Arf arf. Irony overload!

[thomasmind]

Arf arf. Irony overload!

Awesome! The primary Atheiest argument is that Science cannot prove or disprove God. Duh, Science is 3 dimensional of course science cannot prove more than 3 dimensions since we live on a 3 dimensional plane therefore God, existing on a dimension greater (theoretically) than the third, science could not prove or disprove God. I guess it is possible that not All athiests expect science to explain more than it's mechanical design, but I have $50 bucks to the person that finds one that does not.