1. Joined
    17 Jun '05
    Moves
    9211
    10 Dec '05 21:54
    If we assume there is a god why would he make the bible and have its contents disagree with science. I would expect if there was an all powerful god his words would be in maths and physics, not something that contradicts them. Also if he made the world why would he put evidence on it to suggest otherwise for example geology with fossils and the like. I'm sure if there was a god he would use science to help people not disagree with it.

    Lasty i think if the bible was in agreement with science there would be less argument and so the world might be a better place in one respect as at the way things stand there is cause for massive disagreements
  2. Joined
    23 Sep '05
    Moves
    11774
    10 Dec '05 22:08
    Haven't you seen the hitchikers guide to the galaxy? Don't you know. The problem is this: God can't allow us to "know" he exists, because then we stop believing in him, and God desperately needs us to believe in him (or something like that). My conclusion is that God has created everything in such a confusing manner so we cannot "know" of his existence, but only "believe" in it.

    Makes sense now, doesn't it? 🙂
  3. Joined
    24 May '05
    Moves
    7212
    10 Dec '05 22:20
    Originally posted by Will Everitt
    If we assume there is a god why would he make the bible and have its contents disagree with science. I would expect if there was an all powerful god his words would be in maths and physics, not something that contradicts them. Also if he made the world why would he put evidence on it to suggest otherwise for example geology with fossils and the like. I ...[text shortened]... better place in one respect as at the way things stand there is cause for massive disagreements
    Why should God have to agree with science? Do you really believe that all-powerful words must be in the form of math and physics? Those are useful tools, and some of the more powerful we have as humans. But, by no means are they absolute truth or some sort of limit on God.
  4. Joined
    17 Jun '05
    Moves
    9211
    10 Dec '05 22:32
    Originally posted by yousers
    Why should God have to agree with science? Do you really believe that all-powerful words must be in the form of math and physics? Those are useful tools, and some of the more powerful we have as humans. But, by no means are they absolute truth or some sort of limit on God.
    I think if a god exists then he would of made science then why would he disagree with something he made? Also do you think the bible is "absolute truth" and i admit science can be wrong but this is how it improves by finding a newer thery that describes something better until it is proven wrong and the cycle renews. The bible can not improve or shift when things disagree with it and it is flawed in many ways.
  5. Joined
    24 May '05
    Moves
    7212
    11 Dec '05 00:25
    Originally posted by Will Everitt
    I think if a god exists then he would of made science then why would he disagree with something he made? Also do you think the bible is "absolute truth" and i admit science can be wrong but this is how it improves by finding a newer thery that describes something better until it is proven wrong and the cycle renews. The bible can not improve or shift when things disagree with it and it is flawed in many ways.
    God has not created science; he has created man who has in turn created science. Of course we know that man has strayed from God, and so he as all things in the world have become imperfect. God does not have to make anything agree with an imperfect human construct like science.
    I think the bible can be interpreted as being absolutely true. I agree that the bible cannot shift or change, but it would not have to if it were true in the first place. I am not sure what flaws you know of in the Bible. If you consider something that does not agree with science as a flaw, then I point to the above statement. If you are looking at fine details of interpretation, they can be attributed possibly to translation or inevitable human error.
    What exactly are the errors you find?
  6. Standard memberRemoved
    Joined
    08 Dec '04
    Moves
    100919
    11 Dec '05 01:04
    Originally posted by Will Everitt
    If we assume there is a god why would he make the bible and have its contents disagree with science. I would expect if there was an all powerful god his words would be in maths and physics, not something that contradicts them. Also if he made the world why would he put evidence on it to suggest otherwise for example geology with fossils and the like. I ...[text shortened]... better place in one respect as at the way things stand there is cause for massive disagreements
    If we assume there is a god why would he make the bible and have its contents disagree with science.

    Such as what? I have found that science agree's with the bible. If you are speaking of evolutuion, that is not science.
  7. Colorado
    Joined
    11 May '04
    Moves
    11981
    11 Dec '05 02:061 edit
    Originally posted by yousers
    God has not created science; he has created man who has in turn created science. Of course we know that man has strayed from God, and so he as all things in the world have become imperfect. God does not have to make anything agree with an imperfect human construct like science.
    I think the bible can be interpreted as being absolutely true. I agree that t ...[text shortened]... uted possibly to translation or inevitable human error.
    What exactly are the errors you find?
    Not quite. If God created this world or this universe for that matter, he quite definitely created science as well. The laws of science are his laws.
  8. Colorado
    Joined
    11 May '04
    Moves
    11981
    11 Dec '05 02:08
    Originally posted by Will Everitt
    If we assume there is a god why would he make the bible and have its contents disagree with science. I would expect if there was an all powerful god his words would be in maths and physics, not something that contradicts them. Also if he made the world why would he put evidence on it to suggest otherwise for example geology with fossils and the like. I ...[text shortened]... better place in one respect as at the way things stand there is cause for massive disagreements
    Mankind as a whole knows almost nothing about religion and even less about science. Perhaps it is premature to say how the two support or contradict each other.
  9. Joined
    24 May '05
    Moves
    7212
    11 Dec '05 04:39
    Originally posted by The Chess Express
    Not quite. If God created this world or this universe for that matter, he quite definitely created science as well. The laws of science are his laws.
    I disagree. God has created man with the ability conceptualize and reason. Science is a human establishment of reason designed to describe the world that God has created. The laws of science are continously being edited through revolutions, modifications, etc. This is indicative of their inability to describe all things, their imperfection, and their instability. How can such dynamic theories and laws be the product of an all-knowing creator? My answer is, they are not. Science is a HUMAN construct. God does not care or need to align his word with the current scientific trend, whatever it may be.
  10. Colorado
    Joined
    11 May '04
    Moves
    11981
    11 Dec '05 05:361 edit
    Originally posted by yousers
    I disagree. God has created man with the ability conceptualize and reason. Science is a human establishment of reason designed to describe the world that God has created. The laws of science are continously being edited through revolutions, modifications, etc. This is indicative of their inability to describe all things, their imperfection, and their ins ...[text shortened]... d does not care or need to align his word with the current scientific trend, whatever it may be.
    I disagree. God has created man with the ability conceptualize and reason.

    This is true.

    II Timothy 1:7 For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and a sound mind.

    God has given us the ability to discover the mysteries of his creation.

    Science is a human establishment of reason designed to describe the world that God has created.

    This is not true.

    Science is everything that is physical. The physical universe would still be here if we were not. Are you suggesting that two molecules of hydrogen combined with one molecule of oxygen would not be water if a human wasn’t around to reason about it?

    The laws of science are continously being edited through revolutions, modifications, etc. This is indicative of their inability to describe all things, their imperfection, and their instability.

    Not really. It’s more indicative of us learning through trail and error.

    How can such dynamic theories and laws be the product of an all-knowing creator? My answer is, they are not.

    I’m not sure why you would say this. If God created the physical then he created science. If God created water then he created hydrogen and oxygen molecules in such a way that they attract one another and form water.

    God does not care or need to align his word with the current scientific trend, whatever it may be.

    I’m not suggesting that this need be the case. I believe that those who know God know how science fits perfectly with religion and vise versa. Just because we haven’t figured it out yet does not mean that the two are not connected.
  11. Joined
    21 Oct '04
    Moves
    17038
    11 Dec '05 05:52
    Originally posted by Will Everitt
    If we assume there is a god why would he make the bible and have its contents disagree with science. I would expect if there was an all powerful god his words would be in maths and physics, not something that contradicts them. Also if he made the world why would he put evidence on it to suggest otherwise for example geology with fossils and the like. I ...[text shortened]... better place in one respect as at the way things stand there is cause for massive disagreements
    I agree with checkbaiter here, I have taken both Evolution courses and Intelligent design courses, and IMHO evolution is so far from science, there are so many serious flaws in it, Its merely the best solution they got if we take God out of the picture
  12. Colorado
    Joined
    11 May '04
    Moves
    11981
    11 Dec '05 05:531 edit
    Originally posted by flyUnity
    I agree with checkbaiter here, I have taken both Evolution courses and Intelligent design courses, and IMHO evolution is so far from science, there are so many serious flaws in it, Its merely the best solution they got if we take God out of the picture
    Would you mind pointing out some of the flaws?
  13. Joined
    21 Oct '04
    Moves
    17038
    11 Dec '05 06:161 edit
    Originally posted by The Chess Express
    Would you mind pointing out some of the flaws?
    Evolution has no intelligence. It is totally dumb. It does not evaluate, plan, organize or have the ability to intentionally change something based on information of any sort. For evolution to create a sophisticated program powerful enough to run a human being is absolutely astounding for intelligent scientists to even consider it. It is absolutely impossible aside from God.

    To produce DNA, it requires over 75 different types of proteins. Yet DNA is essential for creating proteins." A Question of Origins video Did you see that!!! Proteins are required to make DNA and DNA is required to make proteins. Both extremely complicated systems are necessary at the same time and must be fully functioning in order to create the other.

    DNA is like the information on a CD-ROM. Proteins are like the plastic CD-ROM. RNA is like the CD-ROM drive. In order for DNA to evolve and be useful it requires the DNA (complex information), several proteins (Plastic CD-ROM) and the RNA (the CD-ROM drive) for this program to have a chance to work. However, neither DNA, RNA or Protein would evolve by natural selection because they require the existence of the other systems. Evolution is hopelessly inadequate for producing DNA, not to mention the absolutely astounding complexity of a single cell

    Edit, Actually, This thread is not an evolution debate thread, I dont want to hijack this thread.
  14. Standard memberscottishinnz
    Kichigai!
    Osaka
    Joined
    27 Apr '05
    Moves
    8592
    11 Dec '05 07:29
    Originally posted by flyUnity
    Evolution has no intelligence. It is totally dumb. It does not evaluate, plan, organize or have the ability to intentionally change something based on information of any sort. For evolution to create a sophisticated program powerful enough to run a human being is absolutely astounding for intelligent scientists to even consider it. It is absolutely impossib ...[text shortened]... dit, Actually, This thread is not an evolution debate thread, I dont want to hijack this thread.
    What absolute crap. If you don't realise that evolution is the truth then you simply don't understand it properly.

    Creationists always point to systems as they are now and show how unlikely it would be to evolve. However, these systems never evolve prima facie. Take, for example, the eye. Creationist will describe the fantastic sophistication of the lens, the way it's able to regulate the amount of light that enters, or how the rods and cones can sense the wavelengths of light that enter the eye. Truly, it is an amazing thing and could never evolve spontaneously.

    But it didn't.

    We see simple eyes in many other species. If you look at some platyhelminth worms, some of the simplest organisms around, they have eye spots, simple light sensing cells allowing the worm to know the direction of the light and not much more. There are still more complex animals where the eyespots have become curved into half spheres, which allow increased resolution. This process occurs until the eye becomes more and more complex.

    Creationists also say dumb things like 'what good are these poor quality eyes?' Well, they don't have to start off very good if everything else has got poor eyesight. As predators eyesight improves (organisms with better eyesight catch more prey are healthier, live longer and have more offspring, which in turn may have better eyesight), so too must the prey organisms eyesight. Prey with better eyesight, or better camoflage don't get caught and don't get eaten. Prey which aren;t eaten are more likely to have offspring than those which have been eaten - even a creationist can't deny that, although they will try.

    Anyhoo, I don;t know why i'm wasting my breath because you've already made your closed, shrivelled, mind up, and nothing I can tell you will change it.
  15. Standard memberscottishinnz
    Kichigai!
    Osaka
    Joined
    27 Apr '05
    Moves
    8592
    11 Dec '05 07:31
    Originally posted by checkbaiter
    [b]If we assume there is a god why would he make the bible and have its contents disagree with science.

    Such as what? I have found that science agree's with the bible. If you are speaking of evolutuion, that is not science.[/b]
    As a biologist I think I'd challenge you on that. How is evolutionary THEORY not science exactly???
Back to Top