Can Science and Religion be reconciled?

[(Q)]

For example, what major scientific organization would fund a study designed to prove that a Biblical account was true?

Most likely none. The reason being that science and religion are at two opposite ends of many spectrums; logic, reason, rationale, faith, etc.

Science has no interest in Biblical accounts. Why waste time trying to prove fairy tales?

 

[dharveymi]

Because the Bible is, in part at least, a historical work. It is not simply a fictional account.

 

[(Q)]

Can you name any one event in which the reference to the event is from the Bible and was later confirmed?

 

[dharveymi]

The Red Sea crossing.

 

[(Q)]

From the 'Creation Evidence Museum' website:

The tolerances for life are extremely narrow, and if there are any other planets in the universe, it is very unlikely that any of them could have life, due to the extremely rigid conditions necessary for life to exist.

And yet the Hubble telescope has found over 100 planets orbiting other stars not unlike our own. Some planets are orbiting within the “Habitable Zone.”

As well, life can exist under extreme conditions, for example the hosts of lifeforms thriving in and around “smoker chimneys” (hydrothermal vents) in the ocean floor in which temperatures boil the surrounding seawater, where the water pressure is so great it would crush a human, and in depths where no light can penetrate.

Life can even exist without sunlight!

http://www.resa.net/nasa/ocean_hydrothermal.htm#community

Earth's sidereal day of 23 hours, 56 minutes, 4.09 seconds allows for proper, uniform heating and cooling of its spinning surface

What’s wrong with solar days?

The Earth’s rotation is slowing and has been for millennia due to our tidal locked orbit with the moon. The days are getting longer.

A website to steer clear...

 

[dharveymi]

What is the point of the last post? I'm a little slow.

 

[(Q)]

The point of the last post was to show that I took the time to consider the website as you suggested and found it to be full of misleading statements and that one should probably not waste their time in perusal.

There are no archeological records of any kind other than the Bible that mention the event known as the 'Parting of the Red Sea' ever took place.

Try again.

 

[dharveymi]

Thank you so much. I have not attempted to verify the particulars of anything posted on their web site. I have veiwed a video tape of a presentation by Carl Baugh (sp.) I found it very convincing. The evidence you use to refute the few facts you did glean from their website are somewhat less convincing (I couldn't even figure out what your point was). Dr. Baugh presents a theory similar to the paradigm shifting evolutionary theory; it is very convincing.

Concerning the Red Sea crossing consider Red Sea Crossing. This is the website presents evidence uncovered by amateur archeologist, Ron Wyatt. The evidence he discovered at the site of the Red Sea crossing, and confirmed by other archeologists, is almost irrefutable.

 

[Ceridwen018]

Hmmm...actually, I thought that archeologists who believed to have found evidence for the 'Crossing of the Red Sea' agreed that the crossing actually happened through the Sea of Reeds, and that the bible says Red Sea through mistranslation. In fact, it is pretty widely accepted through the scientific religious community that it was the Sea of Reeds.

 

[dharveymi]

Ron did something very peculiar. He followed the account in the Bible to locate the crossing site. Most of the archeological world and science in general does not accept the Bible.

 

[Ceridwen018]

If they don't accept the bible, then how can you propose that there is evidence for the crossing, which is a biblical event?

 

[(Q)]

The evidence you use to refute the few facts you did glean from their website are somewhat less convincing

How is the hard evidence I presented less convincing than the assertions made by the Creation Evidence website? Are you able to distinguish the difference?

I couldn't even figure out what your point was

The point is simple - the Creation Evidence website is pure nonsense - they have no idea what they're talking about. Do you understand now?

amateur archeologist, Ron Wyatt. The evidence he discovered at the site of the Red Sea crossing, and confirmed by other archeologists, is almost irrefutable.

Sorry, I checked Ron Wyatts site and found no evidence whatsoever confirming the crossing - how is it possible you came to that conclusion? It is easily refutable.

Ron appears to be a hard-core Bible thumper and believes everything contained within it. He has no credentials and uses quotes from the Bible to make his point. This man is not a scientist by any stretch of the imagination.

 

[Linus]

Regardless of his credentials, you have to admit that the findings are quite interesting. The Noah's ark investigation, I think, is most intriguing.

And while we're on the topic of archaeology, one of my math teachers in high school told me a story about a friend of his. This friend had a dog that died about 12 years earlier. My teacher's friend found one of the bones from this dog outside where he had buried it. He took the bone to someone who could run some tests to date it, but he did not tell them the origin of the bone. When the results came back they said that the bone was about 400 years old.

Take that story and do what you will with it.

 

[(Q)]

Take that story and do what you will with it.

:roll:

 

[Linus]

Im sorry Q do you have a problem with my last post?

 

[(Q)]

Let's try using some common sense, shall we.

The bone is not that of the dog...

...or the guy who tested it knows not what he does.

Of course, no one thought of getting a second or third test.

So, I'll reiterate...

:roll:

 

[dharveymi]

Q,

I am more than willing to discuss any particular claim, for or against evolution, for or against the Bible, but as the Bible says, the man that decides a matter before its hearing, to him it is a folly and a shame. I don't believe that judgements should be made concerning the people involved in a scientific investigation, the evidence that they have found, nor conclusions should be made without hearing the evidence. Video presentations are available on the websites that I mentioned, which do a decent job of presenting the evidence they have found.

I have no affiliation with either of these sites and make no money from them. I would not recomend purchasing them though, because they are very expensive. I would be better to borrow them from someone, they are quite popular in some Christian circles, and some libraries may have them.

I can assure you that both present compelling scientific evidence for their conclusions. Neither were simply "Bible thumpers."

I personally believe in the scienfic method, but I do not think that evidence should be ignored simply because it does not support an accepted theory. "Established" science regularly dismisses such evidence and lines of investigation systematically. For example, money to investigate a site where evidence has been found contrary to accepted evolutionary theory is nonexistant, etc.

I know, "It's a conspiracy!" That's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that we do not rule our beliefs, our beliefs rule us. The scientific community is dominated by people with a particular philosophic viewpoint. Their beliefs dictate their interests and research. People with different beliefs and interests are capable of following the scientific method, that does not make their research questionable, their evidence and conclusions should be based on their ability to follow established methods.

Excuse me for not being able to follow your arguements, but let me take a stab at it. You are saying that Hubble has found 100 planets some of which might be similar to our own. Aren't there billions and billions of stars. Let's pretend there is life like our own on each of these planets (a huge leap.) That still makes life extremely unlikely. What do we know about life on these other planets? Are they like us? Have they sinned? Is there evil there? How did life come to exist on those planets?

Getting down to brass tax, I have found no conclusive evidence in favor of evolution as the origin of species. I have found no evidence for evolution as the origin of even one species. I have seen no evidence for the spontaneous generation of life. I have seen no evidence that life can be manufactured even with all the technology that exists today. Take elements, mix...life... I don't think so. I have seen no evidence (other than the biblical flood) which would explain the "geological record", or the existence of coal. I have seen no evidence, that explains the origin of earth's base rock, the granites (scientists are unable to agree about even their most fundamental properties.) Come on, the "scientific community" is more like a family fude. There are no "natural" processes that explain many of the things we are told are "excepted" scientific truth. The very assumptions of science (steady state assumptions, for example) are called into question by scientists themselves on a regular basis. Scientists are fundamentally limited. Most regect any evidence or theory that would calls into question their belief that everything goes on as it always has, that no supernatural event has every impacted this earth's history, and that nothing happens outside their ability to understand it; evidence suggests that their assumptions are wrong.

 

[(Q)]

I can assure you that both present compelling scientific evidence for their conclusions.

Sorry, they do no such thing - they only make assertions. And they’re assertions are not based on evidence but instead fallacious arguments.

"Established" science regularly dismisses such evidence and lines of investigation systematically.

No, they dismiss assertions based on fallacious arguments. They NEVER dismiss hard evidence.

What I'm saying is that we do not rule our beliefs, our beliefs rule us.

That would depend on whether or not your beliefs were ruled by faith. If so, then you can speak for yourself.

The scientific community is dominated by people with a particular philosophic viewpoint. Their beliefs dictate their interests and research. People with different beliefs and interests are capable of following the scientific method, that does not make their research questionable, their evidence and conclusions should be based on their ability to follow established methods

You don’t know much about the scientific community. They deal with evidence, not philosophy or beliefs. Have you ever heard of ‘peer review?’

Let's pretend there is life like our own on each of these planets (a huge leap.) That still makes life extremely unlikely.

You just contradicted yourself – how can life be extremely unlikely if there is life on each of these planets? As well, you don’t state why life could be extremely unlikely. I already provided you evidence to the contrary, so your point is moot.

What do we know about life on these other planets? Are they like us? Have they sinned? Is there evil there? How did life come to exist on those planets?

We don’t know what kind of life exists on other planets. It could simply be in a very early state similar to the state the Earth was billions of years ago. It could be so far advanced that we pale in comparison. But intelligence is only a small branch of evolution and is not demanded in the evolutionary chain.

Sin? Evil? Gimme a break.

Life came to exist on those planets the same way it came to exist here – it evolved.

I have found no conclusive evidence in favor of evolution as the origin of species. I have found no evidence for evolution as the origin of even one species.

Of course not, you believe in creationism. Accepting evolution would crumble that house of cards. Either that or you simply don’t know anything about evolution. Although evolution is a theory, it is as close to a cold hard fact as any theory that provides the mountains of evidence evolution does.

Relativity is another theory with over a hundred years of experimental evidence that would also make it a fact.

I have seen no evidence for the spontaneous generation of life. I have seen no evidence that life can be manufactured even with all the technology that exists today.

Are you kidding me? You expect scientists to simply conjure up in a lab that which took billions of years to evolve?

Take elements, mix...life... I don't think so.

Take invisible all knowing, all-powerful supernatural entity, wave hand, *poof* the universe and Earth with all its inhabitants… and that’s supposed to make sense?

I have seen no evidence (other than the biblical flood) which would explain the "geological record", or the existence of coal.

Again, you’re kidding me – are you trying to tell me you don’t know how coal formed? This is a simple elementary school topic. You can’t be serious.

http://www.energyquest.ca.gov/story/chapter08.html

I have seen no evidence, that explains the origin of earth's base rock, the granites (scientists are unable to agree about even their most fundamental properties.)

That’s funny, here’s a paper describing in great detail the fundamental properties of granite. I have found no other information disagreeing with this paper. Can you provide evidence for that which you claim?

http://annual.mgu.bg/2002/en/gpf_en/dokladi_pdf/Murhov_a.pdf

Come on, the "scientific community" is more like a family fude.

Uh-huh – again, you know little of that community.

There are no "natural" processes that explain many of the things we are told are "excepted" scientific truth.

The entire universe is a natural process and everything it contains works from natural processes. There is no evidence to the contrary.

Scientists are fundamentally limited. Most regect any evidence or theory that would calls into question their belief that everything goes on as it always has, that no supernatural event has every impacted this earth's history, and that nothing happens outside their ability to understand it; evidence suggests that their assumptions are wrong.

Please, you should really stop commenting on scientists because quite clearly you know nothing about the scientific community and what it represents. No scientist EVER neglects evidence – that is complete nonsense.

And if a supernatural event ever happened, why is there no evidence it did happen?

It appears you’re deeply entrenched in creationism and the Bible and that you know nothing about science and evolution.

You continue to denounce evolution yet have not come up with one single argument or piece of evidence to refute any one area of evolution.

If you think you know evolution, then why don’t you take the evidence in favor of evolution and tell me why it’s wrong and why that evidence should be in favor of creationism? Pick anything that is not an event in the Bible, please.

For example, we can observe viruses and bacteria evolve? Or, why is natural selection wrong? Is mutation the hand of God or evolution?

 

[Linus]

I personally don't have any problem with the belief that life exists on other planets. I haven't been completely convinced that it does yet, but I certainly don't think it's an impossibility.

The Bible doesn't say anything (to my knowledge, I could be wrong) on this subject. In which case there would be no conflict between the Bible and science on this subject.

 

[(Q)]

I haven't been completely convinced that it does yet, but I certainly don't think it's an impossibility.

It may very well exist within our own solar system aside from the Earth.

The Bible doesn't say anything (to my knowledge, I could be wrong) on this subject. In which case there would be no conflict between the Bible and science on this subject.

The Bible doesn't mention it because the Bible was written by men who had no clue.
And there are enough conflicts with the Bible to warrent it a place on the shelf beside Aesop and Grimms.