Science and Relgion...

IMO, science just adds to religion, unless the scientists are ....... well, oblivious. I mean, have you heard the watchmaker theory? About how the world is like a watch and since a watch had to have a Maker so to did the world. I find that so true and when we look at the complexities of atoms or the human body (the circulatory system alone... [img]eek.gif[/img] ) ... How can we deny a Creator?

The danger comes of using science in place of God. or making science into your deity.
I've often found that some scientists think they know everything when really they don't. I mean, there are some things they're trying to figure out that we religious folks have had figured out for 2,000+ years!

If science and religion were to ever contradict each other (as in the case of the idea of evolution) I'd go with religion every time. [img]smile.gif[/img]

Anyway...my question to you is... what do you think? Are they working together against each other? Is one right over the other?

<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ April 06, 2006 01:07 AM: Message edited by: Tra ]</font>

I don't think there needs to be a conflict between science and religion. As I said in my quote, science gives us the "how" and religion gives us the "why".

The Bible says the world was made in seven days, and I think even if science can prove it was made in 18 years, there's still the possiblity that it was seven units of time, not the 24 hour days we know now. Of course, I read the Bible as the word of God written by man, which allows for a little interpetation. When you take history and science into hand, I think it even enhances the information in the Bible. So far, though I haven't read the Bible cover to cover, I haven't found anything science disproves. If anything, there's alot of science and history backing it.

And I wish they would teach intelligent design in school, or at least give it a mention as a possiblity. You don't even have to it was the Christian God, just a Divine or surpreme being that had specific intent.

Personally I see more problems between religion and society then religion and science.

I don't think there needs to be a conflict between science and religion. As I said in my quote, science gives us the "how" and religion gives us the "why".

The Bible says the world was made in seven days, and I think even if science can prove it was made in 18 years, there's still the possiblity that it was seven units of time, not the 24 hour days we know now. Of course, I read the Bible as the word of God written by man, which allows for a little interpetation. When you take history and science into hand, I think it even enhances the information in the Bible. So far, though I haven't read the Bible cover to cover, I haven't found anything science disproves. If anything, there's alot of science and history backing it.

And I wish they would teach intelligent design in school, or at least give it a mention as a possiblity. You don't even have to it was the Christian God, just a Divine or surpreme being that had specific intent.

Personally I see more problems between religion and society then religion and science.

Quote:

---

The central idea of biological evolution is that all life on Earth shares a common ancestor, just as you and your cousins share a common grandmother.

---

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">*

*http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolib...e/0_0_0/evo_02

This is not true, as man was made specially from the dust in God's image. See Genesis 2-3.

Evolution says that man evolved from something that has the same relative as the apes and all other animals. The Bible says man was made in God's image, formed from the dust and breathed into. Then man was told to name the animals.

If we were lovingly crafted by God out of the dust in His image, we could not have evolved from some fish or squishy amoeba or whatever.

So...evolution contrasts with the Bible. The Bible is right and evolution is wrong.

Evolution has not been proven. It is, after all, only a theory. And an incorrect theory at that.

Actually...could the person be refering to the "Mitochondrial Eve"? There has been a study of DNA that shows if you go far enough back in everyone's family tree we all have a common female ancestor. Of course, this is in step with the Bible, since all man kind came from Adam and Eve, the first man and woman.

The thing says all life on earth...thus trees, birds, fish, squishy little amoebas...that's what it's referring to. Evolution, or macroevolution, is not true. It says species change into other species--this is called speciation. Evolution says humans evolved from something that has a common ancestor with all apes.
The Bible says in Genesis 1:27 that we were made in God's image and in Genesis 2 that we (man) were created from the dust and God breathed the breath of life into us.

So... they are basically contrasting each other. I have no doubt, however, that the Bible is right and evolution is wrong.

If all life is interconnected, I would think it's interconnected by the spark of life God has breathed into every living thing.

Personally, I believe in limited evolution. Horses have changed drastically over history, starting out with four toes and being less then three feet tall, but they're still horses. Man has even changed...bigger, live longer, etc..but man is still man. I think a species can evolve over time in response to enviroment, etc...but I don't think you can make them evolve into a different speices like the ever famous "monkey into man" theory.

You speak of microevolution...adaptation within a few generations. I can see that happening, but speciation and macroevolution are just theories that are wrong.
Macroevolution says man and monkey all have a common ancestor, not that we evolved from monkeys. It's still a wrong theory, for if you read Genesis 2-3, you'll see that God made man separately from the dust, then He gave man dominion over the animals.
Yes, all life is interconnected in that we were all created by God. No doubt there. But we have no "common ancestor."

BohemianMare---I'm just curious... can you give me a list of all the names you've used on HB so far? I don't say this to offend or imply that you've changed your name too much, because I understand why you had to, but I would just like to know. Thanks!

I agree, though I think with dominion over animals comes the responsiblity to treat them humanely. Unfortunetly I have met some Christians who think animals and the earth are purely for man's benefit, and I'll give them benefit of the doubt, maybe they are. But that still doesn't mean we shouldn't treat them responsibly, humanely and enviromentally friendly. After all, this rock is our home...lol

And as for all the names...oy. I don't think I could list them all! lol May I ask why you want to know, Tra?

Yeah... we should treat them humanely. They may be here just for our benefit (and I"m not sure that's true) but that still doesn't mean we can't treat them humanely. I just think of them having feelings and a heartbeat...I couldn't ever torture an animal.

As for your names...just curious. I really wanted to see if you were SayuriWhispers and all those ones about Avalon. ? [img]smile.gif[/img]