Why not God AND Science?

[PolyHedral]

You get out of Genesis what you are able to.
That you don't find truth and faith is not anyone else's fault.

And neither can anyone say God is not behind it all.
He made the chemistry you walk in.

Ah, in that case it's most definitely God's fault that we can't find truth in Genesis. I would expect Him to be able to write a science textbook, after all.

 

[outhouse]

As for my comment about Genesis...Eve had no navel.....
No special training or insight is needed.
It is obvious.
Eve is a clone, generated from the rib of a man.
Therefore she had no navel. She had no mother.
She would be the genetic twin sister to Adam.

is this a joke??? your only using your imagination at this point to rationalize what you dont understand.

However....see yourself as Someone saying to Moses,

isnt it a fact moses did not write the first five books??????

the author was attibuted in the roman period according to history.

Does that sound like yec, to you?

yes strong YEC

He made the chemistry you walk in.

imagination

That you don't find truth and faith is not anyone else's fault.

how about the fact it was written as allegory and you may be bypassing the original message

 

[Oneatatime]

Hi all! I'm new here and I just wanted to know if most of you think that it's either God or science that has the most truth? I personally believe that true science proves God not disproves God. What do you think?

Science persues avenues of insight on the basis of whether hypothesis are consistant or inconsistant with the natural world. Its a messy journey but in only a few centuries it has delivered us a wealth of practical and intellectually stimulating knowledge.

Religion on the other hand has done very little to advance knowledge primarily because its appeals to the supernatural are a major roadblock to any form of advance in knowledge because it amounts to embracing ignorance, primarily for the purpose of maintaining the influence of any given religion on society which is much easier to do when you've set yourself up as the prime source of knowledge.

Religion has retarded our species understanding of the universe by insisting that understanding be consistant with arbitrary religious beliefs, and continues to do so today.

Religious is often the enemy of the free and open enquiry which is needed to properly persue knowledge.

 

[Thief]

Ah, in that case it's most definitely God's fault that we can't find truth in Genesis. I would expect Him to be able to write a science textbook, after all.

That you are less than God would be God's fault.....
God greater Man a little less than the angels.

Oh that's right...nothing spiritual....

Well....I suppose that will leave you as a pile of dust...later on.


(and you expect to lay your expectations unto God?...who is greater?)

 

[outhouse]

That you are less than God would be God's fault.....

how do you know this??

I dont believe you now either one

 

[Thief]

how do you know this??

I dont believe you now either one

Asking the question indicates you haven't really thought about such things.
And somehow you missed a quote of scripture that would be so important.

It's no wonder then...you lack faith.

 

[outhouse]

you lack faith

yes and thankfully faith is outlawed from being taught in the science class.

funny evolution and science are being taught to children, while creation and religion have become outlawed in classrooms and are not taught.

HHMM

 

[Straw Dog]

Hi all! I'm new here and I just wanted to know if most of you think that it's either God or science that has the most truth? I personally believe that true science proves God not disproves God. What do you think?

In regards to the original question here: I believe that the Universe is God so no, I see no real conflict between the Universe and science. In fact, the scientific method is the most useful way of shedding light on the Universe and deepening my reverence for it. As far as other "Gods" are concerned I'm not so sure how compatible they are. I guess it depends on the specific god in question.

 

[Thief]

yes and thankfully faith is outlawed from being taught in the science class.

funny evolution and science are being taught to children, while creation and religion have become outlawed in classrooms and are not taught.

HHMM

And you rejoice?....shame on you.

Isn't there a thread around here somewhere?...about Man without religion.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

And you rejoice?....shame on you.

There's nothing wrong with keeping gods in a religious or even a philosophy class setting considering none of it meets the criteria to be taught as a science. I work for a public school system and I'm not ashamed that the courts got it right by not allowing such a subject be taught in the classrooms.

 

[Thief]

There's nothing wrong with keeping gods in a religious or even a philosophy class setting considering none of it meets the criteria to be taught as a science. I work for a public school system and I'm not ashamed that the courts got it right by not allowing such a subject be taught in the classrooms.

The law is the law....
But to rejoice that God is set aside?

Theology should be required.

Besides the next life will have both God and science.
Care to sit in as science is taught by it's Creator?

Or do you want to lay in silence...in the dark?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

The law is the law....
But to rejoice that God is set aside?

Yes because it has no place in our schools. At least not here in the US and not in public schools. "God" and Science are two separate things and one has nothing to do with the other.

"God" in "private" schools...Go for it.

Theology should be required.

Who's theology?

 

[Oneatatime]

The law is the law....
But to rejoice that God is set aside?

Theology should be required.

Besides the next life will have both God and science.
Care to sit in as science is taught by it's Creator?

Or do you want to lay in silence...in the dark?

Why should theology be required? Like the rest of your post it consists of a series of unsubstantiated claims that have been mushed together into an often logically inconsistant belief framework.

Should we really be muddling the minds of students by encourging them to study such nonsense that pretends to be true?

 

[outhouse]

The law is the law....
But to rejoice that God is set aside?

absolutely

Our childrens scientific minds are not being poisoned by an alternitive view of reality of reality.

the courts recognized this and outlawed in. simply. Im glad science is taught instead of myth.

Besides the next life will have both God and science.
Care to sit in as science is taught by it's Creator?

isnt that a unfounded statement that is only personal opinion at best???

 

[outhouse]

Like the rest of your post it consists of a series of unsubstantiated claims that have been mushed together into an often logically inconsistant belief framework.

you mean like Eve not having a belly button???

 

[gnostic]

"As for my comment about Genesis...Eve had no navel.....
No special training or insight is needed.
It is obvious.
Eve is a clone, generated from the rib of a man.
Therefore she had no navel. She had no mother.
She would be the genetic twin sister to Adam.

If you make a clone, you would have created another man, HENCE another Adam. You wouldn't clone a woman from a man.

The Genesis creation wouldn't have made far more sense, if Eve was created from the earth, the same way Adam was created. Why did God created woman by taking a piece (rib) from a man?

As to navel or belly button. How would you know if she had one or not?

It is not written in the bible if she had none. Please supply source that Eve didn't have a navel.

 

[Thief]

If you make a clone, you would have created another man, HENCE another Adam. You wouldn't clone a woman from a man.

I have it posted all through this forum....
Chapter two is a story of manipulation not creation.
Take portion of specimen and increase it...cloning.
Tweak the genetics to form a female...genetic engineering.
Eve would be Adam's Twin sister.....for a bride.

The Genesis creation wouldn't have made far more sense, if Eve was created from the earth, the same way Adam was created. Why did God created woman by taking a piece (rib) from a man?

As to navel or belly button. How would you know if she had one or not?

She was not born.....no mother.

It is not written in the bible if she had none. Please supply source that Eve didn't have a navel.

Chapter One would be Man as a species.
No names...no law...no restrictions...go forth and multiply.

Chapter Two has all the earmarks of a science experiment.
Isolated living conditions....chosen specimen.....manipulation....

Apparently...during Day Seven....
It was observed that Man was too much like an animal.

THEN Chapter Two.

 

[Thief]

Why should theology be required? Like the rest of your post it consists of a series of unsubstantiated claims that have been mushed together into an often logically inconsistant belief framework.

Should we really be muddling the minds of students by encourging them to study such nonsense that pretends to be true?

And you think it better to 'muddle' our way through it all.....as we do here?

Think of it as an abstract form of exercise...like chess or 'debate' class.

College might then produce people who think....rather than recite.

 

[PolyHedral]

If you make a clone, you would have created another man, HENCE another Adam. You wouldn't clone a woman from a man.

It could be cloned-and-then-genetically-fiddled-with. But then we can't even start on the genetics of Cain and Abel.

 

[outhouse]

Chapter One would be Man as a species.
No names...no law...no restrictions...go forth and multiply.

Chapter Two has all the earmarks of a science experiment.
Isolated living conditions....chosen specimen.....manipulation....

Apparently...during Day Seven....
It was observed that Man was too much like an animal.

THEN Chapter Two.

if you had a clue how genesis was written and by what kind of ancient hebrews and their culture at this time you would be able to put the words into better context

from what I see you have a sever lack of historical biblical education and pretty much your statements are in fantasy land no one else follows.

the two different versions of genesis are from two books being compiled from two different authors very early on.

there are 5 different types or groups of authors in the first 5 books and its so fragmented its hard to make heads from tales. it has caused great confusion and can be misinterpreted easily by a literal reading.

it was written as allegory and thus the editors had no problem in the compilation