Welcome to the updated Slickdeals redesign beta. Learn more and give us feedback. Or, return to the classic view.

Search in
Join the Slickdeals Special Olympics World Games Fundraising Team Support the World Games
Forum Thread

Can God and Modern Science Co-exist?

Dude111 137 March 8, 2013 at 05:18 AM
An interesting interview on the matter

http://www.actionbioscience.org/e...iller.html


Whats your opinions guys?

375 Comments

17 18 19 20 21

Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.

L10: Grand Master
944 Reputation
#271
Quote from charles052 View Post :
On the contrary, they do try to. I just watched a debate on youtube about whether or not science refutes God. The 2 scientists who was for science refutes God wrote books on the subject and declared that it does, going so far as to backtrack on what they said in their own books. Dawkins is no different.

Their atheist advocates, that's for sure.
Some are, and some are not. Science itself is not.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
disgruntled caveman
1,780 Reputation
#272
Quote from charles052 View Post :
And you've just shown exactly how evolutionist activists do it. Not with real science or facts, but with simple conviction. They say "God refutes science!" and they say it with pure conviction while creationists try to be nice and use reason and understanding.

And yes, they do comment on the supernatural. They simply compare it to a native who would react to a piece of technology, how they'd think it was a 'magical' thing, and that just because we don't understand something doesn't mean it's magical. That there's a logical, natural explanation for it, it just waits to be found. That's what atheist scientists say and that's what they believe.
youre missing the subtle difference. saying there is a natural explanation for things and going to find it DOES NOT EXCLUDE G-D from creating those natural things and/or working through them. but what youre doing is giving G-D far too much credit for running every single moment in every single organisms life. like g-d is some cosmic babysitter who's too dumb to come up with autopilot.

saying g-d doesnt exist and g-d NEEDENT exist are two different things.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
L10: Grand Master
1,425 Reputation
#273
Quote from charles052 View Post :
The Maori myths only claim creation of the earth, not the universe.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C4..._mythology
Myths are set in the remote past and their content often has to do with the supernatural. They present Māori ideas about the creation of the universe and the origins of gods and of people
http://www.laits.utexas.edu/doher...ation.html
Io is known as the Supreme Being and ex nihilo (out of nothing) creator of the entire universe


Are you going to acknowledge you're wrong on this now? And do you *really* want to keep talking in absolutes? We haven't even gone into the African, North American or Asian myths yet

Quote :
Not that it matters because you're going to believe whatever you want to believe. But I think if you dig further, you'll find more of the same amongst all the other "creation" beliefs. Only the Bible and the BBT are alike.
I'm going to believe what the evidence demonstrates not dogma. You should try it.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
#274
Quote from vivahate View Post :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C4..._mythology
Myths are set in the remote past and their content often has to do with the supernatural. They present Māori ideas about the creation of the universe and the origins of gods and of people
http://www.laits.utexas.edu/doher...ation.html
Io is known as the Supreme Being and ex nihilo (out of nothing) creator of the entire universe


Are you going to acknowledge you're wrong on this now? And do you *really* want to keep talking in absolutes? We haven't even gone into the African, North American or Asian myths yet



I'm going to believe what the evidence demonstrates not dogma. You should try it.
Understanding translations takes some level of understanding of etymology and how language works. It might seem easy if you can do it, but it's a matter of faculty. The Maori word for "world" means a broader sense of things: all that is. It is often translated as "world" or "universe" because these words are close enough approximations to the actual meaning, but to interpret them literally is wrong. The word doesn't mean "universe" any more than it means "world." Really, the myth is commonly spoken as the creation "out of nothing everything," and it includes among all that exists both the physical and the metaphysical (spirits, god, the underworld, and so on). This isn't in disagreement with what you said; I'm just elaborating because I appreciate the difficulty with which one not versed in the ways of language might struggle when trying to understand what an absurdly old race might mean by the old words aituā (chaos), te kore (the nothing), te pō (darkness), te ao (the world in light), te ao-tū-roa (the enduring world), and te ao mārama (the world of light)--all words that come from a time when the Maori had no exposure whatsoever of the physical universe beyond their small part of Earth.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
disgruntled caveman
1,780 Reputation
#275
Quote from Mixels View Post :
Understanding translations takes some level of understanding of etymology and how language works. It might seem easy if you can do it, but it's a matter of faculty. The Maori word for "world" means a broader sense of things: all that is. It is often translated as "world" or "universe" because these words are close enough approximations to the actual meaning, but to interpret them literally is wrong. The word doesn't mean "universe" any more than it means "world." Really, the myth is commonly spoken as the creation "out of nothing everything," and it includes among all that exists both the physical and the metaphysical (spirits, god, the underworld, and so on). This isn't in disagreement with what you said; I'm just elaborating because I appreciate the difficulty with which one not versed in the ways of language might struggle when trying to understand what an absurdly old race might mean by the old words aituā (chaos), te kore (the nothing), te pō (darkness), te ao (the world in light), te ao-tū-roa (the enduring world), and te ao mārama (the world of light)--all words that come from a time when the Maori had no exposure whatsoever of the physical universe beyond their small part of Earth.
and this doesn't hold with what's in Genesis because....?
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
L10: Grand Master
1,425 Reputation
#276
Quote from Mixels View Post :
Understanding translations takes some level of understanding of etymology and how language works. It might seem easy if you can do it, but it's a matter of faculty. The Maori word for "world" means a broader sense of things: all that is. It is often translated as "world" or "universe" because these words are close enough approximations to the actual meaning, but to interpret them literally is wrong. The word doesn't mean "universe" any more than it means "world." Really, the myth is commonly spoken as the creation "out of nothing everything," and it includes among all that exists both the physical and the metaphysical (spirits, god, the underworld, and so on). This isn't in disagreement with what you said; I'm just elaborating because I appreciate the difficulty with which one not versed in the ways of language might struggle when trying to understand what an absurdly old race might mean by the old words aituā (chaos), te kore (the nothing), te pō (darkness), te ao (the world in light), te ao-tū-roa (the enduring world), and te ao mārama (the world of light)--all words that come from a time when the Maori had no exposure whatsoever of the physical universe beyond their small part of Earth.
I'm not sure if you're focusing on the wrong thing. Charles seems a little hung up on the delineation between 'world' and 'universe' but I don't really think it's reasonable to think people worshiped a god who created the earth they stood on but not the stars they can see in the sky. Considering there are Maori gods/goddesses associated with certain constellations, we know that they did.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
An Awesome Dude
137 Reputation
Original Poster
#277
Quote from charles052 :
There's no proof that the Grand Canyon was carved out in millions of years. Evolutionists merely assume that it was.
Your right my friend THERE IS NOT....

It might have been that way BY NATURE,nothing might have specifically caused it!
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0

Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.

#278
Quote from Dude111 View Post :
Your right my friend THERE IS NOT....

It might have been that way BY NATURE,nothing might have specifically caused it!
Saw a show on the canyon the other night. Someone quit their white collar job an started giving ministry river trips, oblivious to the field of geology.

They'll continue to argue this was formed in a single great flood...

Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
#279
Quote from bonkman View Post :
and this doesn't hold with what's in Genesis because....?
Because charles doesn't seem to understand that the various terms translated collectively as "world" mean much more than just that.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
L10: Grand Master
944 Reputation
#280
Quote from bonkman View Post :
youre missing the subtle difference. saying there is a natural explanation for things and going to find it DOES NOT EXCLUDE G-D from creating those natural things and/or working through them. but what youre doing is giving G-D far too much credit for running every single moment in every single organisms life. like g-d is some cosmic babysitter who's too dumb to come up with autopilot..
Exactly. Charles would demonstrate a lot more respect and honor to G-d if he gave G-d credit for creating DNA, and galaxies and stars. Science describes and honors the Lord's work, it does not destroy it.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
L11: My Level Goes to 11
21 Reputation
#281
Quote from charles052 View Post :
The Maori myths only claim creation of the earth, not the universe.

Not that it matters because you're going to believe whatever you want to believe. But I think if you dig further, you'll find more of the same amongst all the other "creation" beliefs. Only the Bible and the BBT are alike.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoro...e_universe

Technically it's even better because their creation myth includes the creation of time.

http://library.thinkquest.org/03o...ZoroC.html

Quote :
. And by his dear vision Ohrmazd saw that the Destructive Spirit would never cease from aggression and that his aggression could only be made fruitless by the act of creation, and that creation could not move on except through Time and that when Time was fashioned, the creation of Ahriman too would begin to Move.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
#282
Quote from vivahate View Post :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C4..._mythology
Myths are set in the remote past and their content often has to do with the supernatural. They present Māori ideas about the creation of the universe and the origins of gods and of people
http://www.laits.utexas.edu/doher...ation.html
Io is known as the Supreme Being and ex nihilo (out of nothing) creator of the entire universe


Are you going to acknowledge you're wrong on this now? And do you *really* want to keep talking in absolutes? We haven't even gone into the African, North American or Asian myths
Perhaps you shouldn't have started with a religion that was slightly influenced by Christianity. Many of the Maori started to convert to Christianity in the 19th century. There's no way to tell if their concept of the creation of the universe was originally theirs or adopted.



Quote from vivahate View Post :
I'm going to believe what the evidence demonstrates not dogma. You should try it.
Whenever you finally do try doing the same for yourself, I'm sure you'll see my point of view.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
#283
Quote from Rebound View Post :
Some are, and some are not. Science itself is not.
As I've stated time and time again. I do not have a problem with science. I have a problem with scientists who abuse science.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
#284
Quote from Xygonn View Post :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoro...e_universe

Technically it's even better because their creation myth includes the creation of time.

http://library.thinkquest.org/03o...ZoroC.html
Time? The fourth dimension? LOL!!!!

There's no way to prove time except as some measure of change; change of seasons, rotation of the earth around the sun, etc... Just like how a ruler measures in inches.

This is one of the reasons I'm now having a harder time swallowing time traveling movies and such.

Quote from 124nic8 View Post :
BTW, charles, you never answered my questions:
Yeah, you're right.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0

Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.

disgruntled caveman
1,780 Reputation
#285
Quote from charles052 View Post :
Time? The fourth dimension? LOL!!!!

There's no way to prove time except as some measure of change; change of seasons, rotation of the earth around the sun, etc... Just like how a ruler measures in inches.

This is one of the reasons I'm now having a harder time swallowing time traveling movies and such.


Yeah, you're right.
Actually, this isn't true. However, a few prominent scientists believed it. Leibniz is probably the most famous of them. You may want to read The End of Time [amazon.com] by Barbour. It's an interesting read.

It is surprising that it requires pretty advanced physics to show that time (almost certainly) exists as a fabric of our universe and isn't something that has to do with human perception.

Of course, nothing in science is proven, as you conveniently choose to ignore for the 500th time.

And that's not the reason why you should find time-travel movies hard to swallow, BTW Roll Eyes (Sarcastic)
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
Page 19 of 26
17 18 19 20 21
Join the Conversation
Add a Comment
 
Slickdeals Price Tracker
Saving money just got easier.
Start Tracking Today
Copyright 1999 - 2015. Slickdeals, LLC. All Rights Reserved. Copyright / DMCA Notice  •  Privacy Policy  •  Terms of Service  •  Acceptable Use Policy (Rules)