Science vs religion!

[Lillen]

The thing about science is that it often reflects ideas similar to other religious belief, i can draw a connection bewteen, rebirth of universe, hindu concept calpa, and as popular science call it, big crouch.

That's one exemple... why is this, should science discover new things apart from religion? and i ask as a christian!

 

[Geologist]

The thing about science is that it often reflects ideas similar to other religious belief, i can draw a connection bewteen, rebirth of universe, hindu concept calpa, and as popular science call it, big crouch.

That's one exemple... why is this, should science discover new things apart from religion? and i ask as a christian!

The Big 'crouch'????? What connections are you drawing between 'rebirth of the universe, calpa and the 'big crouch(sic)?'

What religious ideas are reflected in the concepts of mantle convection, Germ theory of disease and reflection seismology?

 

[fenix144]

The thing about science is that it often reflects ideas similar to other religious belief, i can draw a connection bewteen, rebirth of universe, hindu concept calpa, and as popular science call it, big crouch.

That's one exemple... why is this, should science discover new things apart from religion? and i ask as a christian!

I don't get it.....

 

[Jazer]

The thing about science is that it often reflects ideas similar to other religious belief, i can draw a connection bewteen, rebirth of universe, hindu concept calpa, and as popular science call it, big crouch.

They will never admit that a lot of science began as a religious belief. Before Darwin they believed Science and Religion or Science and Creationism had a common goal. But things are different after Darwin and often there is a skism. That may not be Darwin's fault. He did not have anything to say about religion one way or the other. He started off defending the Bible. But on his 5 year journey on the HMS Beagle the sailors were anti religion and Darwin did not want to argue with them about it.

 

[Aeneas]

The thing about science is that it often reflects ideas similar to other religious belief, i can draw a connection bewteen, rebirth of universe, hindu concept calpa, and as popular science call it, big crouch.

That's one exemple... why is this, should science discover new things apart from religion? and i ask as a christian!

They will never admit that a lot of science began as a religious belief. Before Darwin they believed Science and Religion or Science and Creationism had a common goal. But things are different after Darwin and often there is a skism. That may not be Darwin's fault. He did not have anything to say about religion one way or the other. He started off defending the Bible. But on his 5 year journey on the HMS Beagle the sailors were anti religion and Darwin did not want to argue with them about it.

anyone have any idea what these two are talking about?

 

[Orogeny]

anyone have any idea what these two are talking about?

Almost never.

 

[Shemjaza]

They will never admit that a lot of science began as a religious belief. Before Darwin they believed Science and Religion or Science and Creationism had a common goal. But things are different after Darwin and often there is a skism. That may not be Darwin's fault. He did not have anything to say about religion one way or the other. He started off defending the Bible. But on his 5 year journey on the HMS Beagle the sailors were anti religion and Darwin did not want to argue with them about it.

I'd heard that the captain of the Beagle was a devout religious man?

Also, Darwin was a Christian long after his voyage... he didn't become an agnostic till after he had to deal with the death of his daughter.

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

anyone have any idea what these two are talking about?

Nope. You?

 

[cupid dave]

anyone have any idea what these two are talking about?

They seem tobe poor readers of the bible, or else thay have listenednto the ideas from someone who lived in the midle ages who tried to explain Genesis.

Science has slowly developednideas which actually confirm what we read in Genesis.



It is clear that the Universe DID have a beginning, 13.5 billion years ago.
(Gen 1:1)
There were seven long Cosmic "days" since that Big Bang, which we call the seven cosmic/geological Eras.
A Cosmic Dark Age did precede that advent of let there be light to flood the cosmos.
(Gen 1:3-5)
There was one ocean, once, where all the waters had been collected together.
(Gen 1:9)
Pangea/Rodinia did actually confirm that the dry land appeared surrounded totally by water.
(Gen 1:10)
The Plant kingdom did establish itself before the Animal kingdom.
(Gen 1:11)
Man WAS the last step in the evolution of Dominant Life on earth.
(Gen 1:27)

 

[roach]

The thing about science is that it often reflects ideas similar to other religious belief, i can draw a connection bewteen, rebirth of universe, hindu concept calpa, and as popular science call it, big crouch.

That's one exemple... why is this, should science discover new things apart from religion? and i ask as a christian!

Why is what? I don't even understand what point you were trying to make in the first part. Religions are similar? Are you trying to say religions already got it right and we don't need scientists to figure it out; we just need good translators who can interpret obscure writing and make it fit to what we know already? Unless you mean something else, I think you have my opinion.

 

[Blayz]

Lillen is here to be appreciated, like a piece of abstract art, not understood.

 

[Loudmouth]

They will never admit that a lot of science began as a religious belief. Before Darwin they believed Science and Religion or Science and Creationism had a common goal. But things are different after Darwin and often there is a skism.

It started well before Darwin. You could probably point to the Galileo Affair as the first schism between Religion and Science. Before Darwin ever published the geologists of the time found, to their great dismay, that there was not a recent global flood and the Earth was actually quite ancient. Both of these findings again departed from where they thought the science would take them based on their religious beliefs. To quote Steven Weinberg:

Once nature seemed inexplicable without a nymph in every brook and a dryad in every tree. Even as late as the nineteenth century the design of plants and animals was regarded as visible evidence of a creator. There are still countless things in nature that we cannot explain, but we think we know the principles that govern the way they work. Today for real mystery one has to look to cosmology and elementary particle physics. For those who see no conflict between science and religion, the retreat of religion from the ground occupied by science is nearly complete." (Weinberg, S., "Dreams of a Final Theory," Pantheon: New York NY, 1992, pp.249-250) ​

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

They seem tobe poor readers of the bible, or else thay have listenednto the ideas from someone who lived in the midle ages who tried to explain Genesis.

Science has slowly developednideas which actually confirm what we read in Genesis.



It is clear that the Universe DID have a beginning, 13.5 billion years ago.
(Gen 1:1)
There were seven long Cosmic "days" since that Big Bang, which we call the seven cosmic/geological Eras.
A Cosmic Dark Age did precede that advent of let there be light to flood the cosmos.
(Gen 1:3-5)
There was one ocean, once, where all the waters had been collected together.
(Gen 1:9)
Pangea/Rodinia did actually confirm that the dry land appeared surrounded totally by water.
(Gen 1:10)
The Plant kingdom did establish itself before the Animal kingdom.
(Gen 1:11)
Man WAS the last step in the evolution of Dominant Life on earth.
(Gen 1:27)

You seem to be a poor typist.

 

[mathclub]

The thing about science is that it often reflects ideas similar to other religious belief, i can draw a connection bewteen, rebirth of universe, hindu concept calpa, and as popular science call it, big crouch.

That's one exemple... why is this, should science discover new things apart from religion? and i ask as a christian!

the similarity is both science and religion attempt to explain the world around us, how it works, and why it is how it is. Obviously there is a lot of crossover, particularly on the more basic parts of our world. But the methodology is totally different.

Science does so with evidence, experimentation, observation and testing. Science embraces new information when it is shown to wrong and adapts it's views to be compatible with reality.

Religion does so with myths, fables and the supernatural. If it is shown to be wrong then it either just denies it is wrong in the face of all the evidence, or else it injects itself into the new explanation to continue it's existance.

 

[Lillen]

Big crouch!! Huge convultion, a term used within popular science when the universe collapse, i think!!? It's an english term but the term was not translated long time ago when i read a science magazine, but used two clips around it - 'Big Crouch'. The term was used within an article describing parallell universe and rebirth of the universe! Even the bible got this idea set forth in Hebrews 1:10-12 which is a quote from psalms, not sure which psalm though, read the crossrefereces in the bible and you'll see. "Like a cloak [...] they will be changed" talking about the world. Parallell worlds is also set forth in the same chapter but earlier, chapter 1:1, oh whom he also created the worlds - it's in plural.

I think the debate whether or not some sceintists are christians are basically irrelevant to the topic...

I don't like the idea to use the bible to support science, this is bascially the first time ever i done so, because science is declining, it is perishable. Science will always alter its doctrins to catch up with objective understanding of the world. The bible is basically static has been since Jesus, and will always be. My notion is that you modell the world - the world is made for us, not we for the world. It might sound like a cliché. But that's my idea of things.

 

[Tinker Grey]

The term you are looking for is crunch.

 

[Cabal]

anyone have any idea what these two are talking about?

Coherence ain't their thang.

The thing about science is that it often reflects ideas similar to other religious belief, i can draw a connection bewteen, rebirth of universe, hindu concept calpa, and as popular science call it, big crouch.

That's one exemple... why is this, should science discover new things apart from religion? and i ask as a christian!

Because religion didn't come up with these ideas first. Science discovers them, then the religious skim back through their texts and reinterpret to make it look like it was present in their books all along. The fact that scarcely anyone from their belief came up with the idea to even remotely the same level of precision as science managed to is indicative of this.

It's not prophetic - it's retconning (with the emphasis on "con").

 

[elahmine]

My opinion is that there would have been no point for God to explain the details of how the universe came to be in Genesis. Try explaining weak and strong forces to people who didn't even understand gravity yet. Of course, we can understand that stuff now, but has taken people a long time to get to this level of science. Either way the most important thing for the Bible to do is to explain why the universe came to be. That is what Genesis answers. I do not think it was meant to be a literal story to be later used as a textbook.

 

[Loudmouth]

My opinion is that there would have been no point for God to explain the details of how the universe came to be in Genesis. Try explaining weak and strong forces to people who didn't even understand gravity yet. Of course, we can understand that stuff now, but has taken people a long time to get to this level of science. Either way the most important thing for the Bible to do is to explain why the universe came to be. That is what Genesis answers. I do not think it was meant to be a literal story to be later used as a textbook.

Galileo said the same thing quite succintly and eloquently:

"The Bible shows the way to go to heaven, not the way the heavens go."

 

[elahmine]

Yes, he also said,

"Yes, he also said I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use." -Galileo Galilei

I tend to agree with him.