From the beginning!!!

Originally posted by FabianFnas
black beetle: "In my opinion Science and Religion are two different mental approaches of the Human on her/ his way to understanding. The Human is the agent who determines the aspects of the Religion just the way s/he likes, whilst this same Human uses Science in order to overcome her/ his ignorance."

Agree. Make sense.

black beetle: "Religion and Sc ...[text shortened]... t of the religious domain? No.
So religion and cience never meet, they simply cannot mix!

A scientist can be religious or not religious and at the same time s/he can be a good scientist regardless her/ his attitude towards religion, therefore her/ his religion itself is not an agent that indicates whether or not a scientist applies properly her/ his scientific back up. I think that it is possible to use Science in a religious way -and I think that this is indeed a fact. For example, see how the Christian theologians were using the preNewtonian and Newtonian Physics, along with the Plato’s and Aristotle’s philosophic doctrines, in order to "prove" that the Universe is an hypermachine created by a supernatural sentient being called “god”.

Through time Science established a strict approach regarding the phenomena of each scientific field (but this is also the case with Philosophy and Theology). The procedures, the standards, the axioms and the doctrines of every scientific field are followed quite accurately and vigorously by the scientists, otherwise the procedures and their fruits (the given theories) are not considered scientific. This is the reason why the accepted scientific theories are solely the ones that they are based on philosophy (common sens) and on scientific facts and evidence.

However the scientists and the philosophers are obliged to think out of the box (this is how we made amongst else our evolution from the Newtonian physics to the quantum mechanics), whilst the theologians are incapable of such an attitude. So I have the feeling that Science is impossible without Philosophy, therefore it seems to me that Philosophy and Religion/ Theology are not compatible.
😵

Originally posted by galveston75
It's not????? Lol.
Since God created all things then any science that comes from man such as evolution can not be true if it contridicts the Bible. There is obviously much we don't understand about the universe and there is nothing wrong with questioning anything in it. But we have to keep God first and give him the honor that he created it all and hopefully someday we can find the answers we all want about thousands of things. I know I do.

evolutionary science does not contradict the bible, it follows the pattern of creation, the variance is in the timeline and the details. I think many Christians will be surprised when they finally learn the truth about creation (me included).

Originally posted by duecer
evolutionary science does not contradict the bible, it follows the pattern of creation, the variance is in the timeline and the details. I think many Christians will be surprised when they finally learn the truth about creation (me included).

Oh so the account of creation in Genesis is not correct? Did God have that written down wrong or something? Adam I thought was created from dust and Eve from his rib. I must have read that wrong.
How would you have it changed? Rev 22:18,19.

Originally posted by galveston75
Oh so the account of creation in Genesis is not correct? Did God have that written down wrong or something? Adam I thought was created from dust and Eve from his rib. I must have read that wrong.
How would you have it changed? Rev 22:18,19.

it doesn't contradict, or can't you read? are you seriously so deluded that you think the earth is 10,000 years old? Do you know what the word allegory means?

Originally posted by duecer
it doesn't contradict, or can't you read? are you seriously so deluded that you think the earth is 10,000 years old? Do you know what the word allegory means?

Who said the earth is only 10,000 years old? Not me...

Originally posted by black beetle
A scientist can be religious or not religious and at the same time s/he can be a good scientist regardless her/ his attitude towards religion, therefore her/ his religion itself is not an agent that indicates whether or not a scientist applies properly her/ his scientific back up. I think that it is possible to use Science in a religious way -and I thin ...[text shortened]... sophy, therefore it seems to me that Philosophy and Religion/ Theology are not compatible.
😵

If a scientist is religious or not doesn't matter. But a biologist being a fundamentalists creationist doesn't make sense. Because creationism isn't science. The bible is not a book of biology. So if he just can keep his relgious thoughts away from his science work, I don't see any problems. (A can be mistaken here, of course.)

Is philosophy science? I don't think so, but this I have to think about a little.

black beetle says: "The procedures, the standards, the axioms and the doctrines of every scientific field are followed quite accurately and vigorously by the scientists, otherwise the procedures and their fruits (the given theories) are not considered scientific."

I'm not so sure about that. I myself have been a part of an experiment trying to prove that the velocity of light hasn't always been the same, despite the fact that the 'scientific doctrine' says that the velocity of light has always been the same. Also the 'doctrine of the Steady State Universe has been exchanged with the BigBang theory, the doctrine that space and time is a continuum has been quantisized, and a lot of other theories. So there are no scientific doctrines, of the kind that the religious doctrines are. The theory best describing observations is the one winning. You aren't burned on fire if you have an onother view of things.

I would like a change of view about singularities in the universe, both at the t=0 in BigBang, and in the middle of Black Holes. I think the physics would be more interesting. I think that they will find teh Higg particle, but it would be more interesting if they didn't. Back to the drawing table, so to speak. The lack of neutrinos from the sun was very interesting until they found out why. A fundamentalist would say that "god wanted it that way", or "the dooms day is approaching", and be happy with that, while scientists are eager to know more about it.

In manifesting the essence of Beginning, God caused the Universe to come into being, and invoking His Judicial mean He developed the formulas governing the physical world (the laws of nature) and those governing the spiritual world (the measures of morality, the concepts of good and evil).

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1443996

If we start with a good translation, then, and only then, we can discuss the truth-claims of the text.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
If a scientist is religious or not doesn't matter. But a biologist being a fundamentalists creationist doesn't make sense. Because creationism isn't science. The bible is not a book of biology. So if he just can keep his relgious thoughts away from his science work, I don't see any problems. (A can be mistaken here, of course.)

Is philosophy science? I ...[text shortened]... ng", and be happy with that, while scientists are eager to know more about it.

We agree;

Regarding my quote that you highlighted, my intention was to show that there is a specific approach (and not a specific so called “absolute truth” that it must be always served at any cost and/ or remain ad infinitum as such) that has to be followed by the scientist who wants to bring up a valid new scientific theory. The scientist/ philosopher has always to welcome the falsification of her/ his theory, whilst the theologian is determined to serve her/ his so called “absolute truth” at any cost😵

Originally posted by stoker
this now is a interesting point. i belive not, as cain was cast with the mark so no one would kill him it must mean there was others here and adam married after eves death, i doubt he married one of his daughters, they had a few children not just the 2 males.

He no doubt married one of his sisters. He was also probably old enough to have many and being so close to perfection physically it wouldn't have affected their offspring in a bad physicle way.