Why the divide between Science and Religion...

[Cynic]

Sure, better yet, I'll have YOU show ME.

Which statement below is an example of true science:

• maggots come from dead meat
• heat is a fluid called phlogiston
• force is mass times acceleration
• at 30 m.p.h. your chest cavity will be crushed

Please give me credible examples of where your "true science" coincides with the bible.

 

[michel]

The protocols of good science overcome the errors of the past, while the ossified dogma of the KJV-only inerrantist clings to its maggot infested backwardness while it salivates at every error encountered by science. Those are the options: the pervasively successful methodological naturalism or the pathetically ignorant God-of-the-Gloat.

That's a bit hard Deut; not all of us theists see the bible as a tool to accept it in the light you portray when you say :"the ossified dogma of the KJV-only inerrantist clings to its maggot infested backwardness while it salivates at every error encountered by science".

It sounds like you tar every Bible reader as "the pathetically ignorant God-of-the-Gloat."
I think that is exagerated, and highly judgemental.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The protocols of good science overcome the errors of the past, while the ossified dogma of the KJV-only inerrantist clings to its maggot infested backwardness while it salivates at every error encountered by science. Those are the options: the pervasively successful methodological naturalism or the pathetically ignorant God-of-the-Gloat.

That's a bit hard Deut; not all of us theists see the bible as a tool to accept it in the light you portray when you say :"the ossified dogma of the KJV-only inerrantist clings to its maggot infested backwardness while it salivates at every error encountered by science".

michel, I am more than a little tired of your distortions. Learn how to read and then constrain your petty knee-jerk reactions long enough to exercise that skill. The quote explicitly targets "the ossified dogma of the KJV-only inerrantist". How dare you imply that I was referring to "all of us theists"! Please retract this crap.

It sounds like you tar every Bible reader as "the pathetically ignorant God-of-the-Gloat."

More mindless drivel ...

• I was NOT referring to "every Bible reader", a category which I guarantee would include me far more than you.
• I was NOT calling anyone, any Bible reader, any Christian, a God of any description whatsoever.

Once again, learn how to read.

I think that is exagerated, and highly judgemental.

And you are more than capable of thinking and saying this irrespective of what it says. Most people call this capability bigotry.

 

[michel]

Please give me credible examples of where your "true science" coincides with the bible.

• mass/energy equivalence - (Colossians 1:17; Hebrews 1:3)
• atomic disintegration - (2 Peter 3:10)
• fluid dynamics - (Job 28:25)
• evaporation - (Jeremiah 10:13)
• hydrologic cycle - (Isaiah 55:10)

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

• mass/energy equivalence - (Colossians 1:17; Hebrews 1:3)

Colossians 1:17

And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.​

Hebrews 1:3

Who being the brightness of [his] glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;​

Res ipsa loquitur!

 

[michel]

Colossians 1:17

And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.​

Yepper! He is before all that is physical, and performing maintenance on them energetically.

 

[michel]

michel, I am more than a little tired of your distortions. Learn how to read and then constrain your petty knee-jerk reactions long enough to exercise that skill. The quote explicitly targets "the ossified dogma of the KJV-only inerrantist". How dare you imply that I was referring to "all of us theists"! Please retract this crap.

More mindless drivel ...

• I was NOT referring to "every Bible reader", a category which I guarantee would include me far more than you.
• I was NOT calling anyone, any Bible reader, any Christian, a God of any description whatsoever.

Once again, learn how to read.
And you are more than capable of thinking and saying this irrespective of what it says. Most people call this capability bigotry.

Once more Deut, I find myself needing to apologise to you in public, since you have demanded that I do so. I retract my 'Crap', I will try to learn how to read, and I shall try to ensure that I do not come across as a bigot (which I honestly do not believe I am).

I must admit that this is not the most pleasant of tasks, as any misunderstanding was not intended; however I know you will refuse to accept that in mitigation.

I therefore once again apologise unreservedly for any wrong I have caused you, and will just have to 'turn the other cheek', as usual. I hope you savour your victory.

 

[michel]

Once more Deut, I find myself needing to apologise to you in public, since you have demanded that I do so. I retract my 'Crap', I will try to learn how to read, and I shall try to ensure that I do not come across as a bigot (which I honestly do not believe I am).

I must admit that this is not the most pleasant of tasks, as any misunderstanding was not intended; however I know you will refuse to accept that in mitigation.

I therefore once again apologise unreservedly for any wrong I have caused you, and will just have to 'turn the other cheek', as usual. I hope you savour your victory.

Michel, I applaud you. You're more of a man than I am.

 

[Cynic]

• mass/energy equivalence - (Colossians 1:17; Hebrews 1:3)
• atomic disintegration - (2 Peter 3:10)
• fluid dynamics - (Job 28:25)
• evaporation - (Jeremiah 10:13)
• hydrologic cycle - (Isaiah 55:10)

:areyoucra You must be joking.

 

[michel]

:areyoucra You must be joking.

I could have tripled that list.

 

[Cynic]

I could have tripled that list.

Your examples were pathetic. Please don't waste my time, or yours.

 

[michel]

Your examples were pathetic. Please don't waste my time, or yours.

If evilution is valid, we have very little time left before we return to the Periodic Table.

If Christianity is valid, we have all eternity to enjoy the choice we made.

 

[Cynic]

If evilution is valid, we have very little time left before we return to the Periodic Table.

If Christianity is valid, we have all eternity to enjoy the choice we made.

I'm sorry, but my beliefs are not motivated by self interest and bribery.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

As long as people reference the bible as being an authority on any science there will be a divide between science and religion because the scientists will be laughing at us! The bible was not written to teach us about atoms and nature. It was written to show us how we can return to God. When there is overwhelming evidence for a scientific theory it is probably right.

Do scientific theories change when new evidence appears? Of course they do. The bible has changed also.

Religion = beliefs based on faith
Science = beliefs based on evidence

You must spread some Karma around before giving it to jonny again.

Well said, jonny! :jam:

 

[michel]

I'm sorry, but my beliefs are not motivated by self interest and bribery.

And my beliefs are not motivated by a lack of knowledge or a "who can know" attitude.

...FOR I KNOW WHOM I HAVE BELIEVED, AND AM PERSUADED THAT HE IS ABLE TO KEEP THAT WHICH I HAVE COMMITTED UNTO HIM AGAINST THAT DAY - (2 Timothy 1:12)

 

[Mr Spinkles]

It was Nikolai Copernicus, a priest, who finally set the record straight.

Actually, Copernicus did not 'set the record straight'. Although he did improve cosmology by placing the Sun (rather than the Earth) at the center of the universe, he maintained that planets moved in perfect circular orbits (real orbits are elliptical). Later improvements--from Kepler's laws of planetary motion to Hubble's law--did not result from prayer or prophesy or some new insight into ancient writings, but from the methodology of science. It's rather curious that for more than a thousand years no one found the "correct" interpretation of scripture--one which implies that the Earth orbits the Sun--until Galileo made telescopic observations which demonstrated it. Amazing how apologists' interpretations of ancient religious texts change with the advancement of scientific knowledge.

Sorry, just had to set the record straight.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

And my beliefs are not motivated by a lack of knowledge or a "who can know" attitude.

...FOR I KNOW WHOM I HAVE BELIEVED, AND AM PERSUADED THAT HE IS ABLE TO KEEP THAT WHICH I HAVE COMMITTED UNTO HIM AGAINST THAT DAY - (2 Timothy 1:12)

Good, because you cannot even know who authored 2 Timothy. Oh, as a favor, if you insist on shouting, try to avoid shouting nonsense.

 

[Cynic]

And my beliefs are not motivated by a lack of knowledge or a "who can know" attitude.

"Believe in Jesus so you can have eternal life"
"Accept Jesus or go to hell"

I find such statement to be synonymous with briberies and threats in which acceptance is motivated only by self interest. This makes acceptance unreasonable.

Wherease my beliefs are warranted by credibility, certainty, and the objective evidense which supports the former two.

A belief without such warranty is illogical, and susceptible to false assumptions and fallacy.

 

[michel]

Wherease my beliefs are warranted by credibility, certainty, and the objective evidense which supports the former two.

A belief without such warranty is illogical, and susceptible to false assumptions and fallacy.

Then why are you an Agnostic, if you're so sure?

 

[Cynic]

Then why are you an Agnostic, if you're so sure?

Where did I claim that I was certain that God does not exist?