100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: faith and science | |
|---|---|
|
Edited by
NickMcGuire
on
Sun 01/19/14 03:36 AM
|
|
What is interesting to think about is faith and science being combined. People often seem to end up cutting out faith from mainstream, or people try to end up separating faith and science. What people don't seem to understand is faith and science do not need a dividing line. Certain people including Kepler and Isaac Newton made huge discoveries in science and might have thought of the pursuit of science as a "Divine Calling." Unfortunately nowadays scientists who had religious beliefs and spiritual beliefs are now being pushed away or discredited. What is interesting to think about is Darwinism. Neo-darwinism (evolution as mainstreamed) ... Neo Darwinism apparently lacks empirical evidence. There's not enough evidence to support it...Neo Darwinism also has contradictions. Recently a professor / student who had attended Yale University found in molecular structures a difference between Darwin's model and a real life model. Darwin's model shows a tree with different groups of organisms including people interconnected and ending or beginning at one stage. A real life model showed separations in between the organisms and each organism line. One might ask also about Darwin perhaps concluding the Earth has no patterns, yet DNA strands seem to have definite patterns if Im correct. Agree?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What people don't seem to understand is faith and science do not need a dividing line. There IS a dividing line between faith and science -- VERIFICATION. Both express theories that may be correct, partially correct or completely wrong; however: "Faith" accepts / believes without effort to determine truth and accuracy of claims. "Science" examines and tests theories and claims with intent to learn truth and accuracy. Those which fail are discarded. Those which are accepted are always open to modification as new information becomes available. Claiming that someone said or someone saw or someone heard (hearsay testimonial) or "some book says so" is NOT regarded as verification in scientific study. Proposing that humans possess a "soul" that "transcends death" into an "afterlife" decided by "gods" is an example of a series of proposals NONE of which can be shown to be true (or to be anything more than human imagination and wishful thinking). Science expects its theories to be subjected to testing by others and discarded if found inaccurate or modified if found incomplete. Learning is an ongoing process with new information incorporated. Faith expects its theories to be accepted as "from god" and believed without need for testing, verification, modification, etc. New information that contradicts accepted theory or dogma is rejected. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What is interesting to think about is faith and science being combined. People often seem to end up cutting out faith from mainstream, or people try to end up separating faith and science. What people don't seem to understand is faith and science do not need a dividing line. Certain people including Kepler and Isaac Newton made huge discoveries in science and might have thought of the pursuit of science as a "Divine Calling." Unfortunately nowadays scientists who had religious beliefs and spiritual beliefs are now being pushed away or discredited. What is interesting to think about is Darwinism. Neo-darwinism (evolution as mainstreamed) ... Neo Darwinism apparently lacks empirical evidence. There's not enough evidence to support it...Neo Darwinism also has contradictions. Recently a professor / student who had attended Yale University found in molecular structures a difference between Darwin's model and a real life model. Darwin's model shows a tree with different groups of organisms including people interconnected and ending or beginning at one stage. A real life model showed separations in between the organisms and each organism line. One might ask also about Darwin perhaps concluding the Earth has no patterns, yet DNA strands seem to have definite patterns if Im correct. Agree? Can't have the Cake and eat it too! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"John," people who have had NDE's might beg to differ on your opinion of no "souls" existing with no "afterlife."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Conrad," Modern believers in Evolution must be short-circuiting their minds perhaps then. Yet if I'm stupid for talking about an obvious characteristic of DNA strand, please enlighten me of my fallacy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
NickMcGuire
on
Sun 01/19/14 09:38 AM
|
|
"Conrad," have you provided evidence of an incorrection on my part?
...if not, then...what can I say? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Conrad_73
on
Sun 01/19/14 09:25 AM
|
|
"Conrad," Modern believers in Evolution must be short-circuiting their minds perhaps then. Yet if I'm stupid for talking about an obvious characteristic of DNA strand, please enlighten me of my fallacy. so,a strand of DNA proves Religion,proves a Supernatural Realm? Come on! Next thing you gonna tell me is that Darwin recanted!  You still want to have the Cake and eat it too! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
NickMcGuire
on
Sun 01/19/14 09:39 AM
|
|
"Conrad," did I say that? If a strand of DNA contains ABCD, ABCD, ABCD in sequential order, would not Darwin's idea of nothing on Earth having pattern be laid bare? Does random accident with no intelligence produce order? DNA itself can be called proof of "Intelligent Design," correct?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What is interesting to think about is faith and science being combined. People often seem to end up cutting out faith from mainstream, or people try to end up separating faith and science. What people don't seem to understand is faith and science do not need a dividing line. Certain people including Kepler and Isaac Newton made huge discoveries in science and might have thought of the pursuit of science as a "Divine Calling." Unfortunately nowadays scientists who had religious beliefs and spiritual beliefs are now being pushed away or discredited. What is interesting to think about is Darwinism. Neo-darwinism (evolution as mainstreamed) ... Neo Darwinism apparently lacks empirical evidence. There's not enough evidence to support it...Neo Darwinism also has contradictions. Recently a professor / student who had attended Yale University found in molecular structures a difference between Darwin's model and a real life model. Darwin's model shows a tree with different groups of organisms including people interconnected and ending or beginning at one stage. A real life model showed separations in between the organisms and each organism line. One might ask also about Darwin perhaps concluding the Earth has no patterns, yet DNA strands seem to have definite patterns if Im correct. Agree? Yes, you are wrong and actually quite remarkably wrong. There is nothing wrong with faith and science, however there is between religion and science. Many proponents of "Intelligent Design" may have "Dr." or Ph.D. in their names but either these come from places like the Patriot Bible College or their degrees are in unrelated science fields. For example, the author of Darwin's Doubts has a Ph.D. in geology and when he discusses biology sounds like an ill-informed high school student. This is an example of the Dunning-Kruger effect. These are the types of people who watch the Flinstones as if it were a documentary. They are also famous for taking statements out of context, misquoting and making up their facts. People who struggle so hard to prove their faith clearly do not have much actual faith, but wishful thinking. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
NickMcGuire
on
Sun 01/19/14 09:46 AM
|
|
....Oh so you don't see the pattern in DNA?...
How blind can we possibly be?! If pattern is found, Darwin is proven false, correct? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Might I add with my first statement, one man who found differences in Darwin's model molecularly compared to the real life model was from Yale University...?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Proposing that humans possess a "soul" that "transcends death" into an "afterlife" decided by "gods" is an example of a series of proposals NONE of which can be shown to be true (or to be anything more than human imagination and wishful thinking). "John," people who have had NDE's might beg to differ on your opinion of no "souls" existing with no "afterlife." Notice carefully that I expressed NO opinion concerning the existence or non-existence of "souls" or "afterlife" – but stated that they cannot be SHOWN to be true (or anything more than human imagination). Testimonials about claimed "Near Death Experiences" may indicate that an individual "believes" they or someone had a personal / psychological / emotional experience. However, that is OPINION and belief rather than verification. Claimed "visions" of supernatural entities are similar – unverifiable testimonials. NDEs can be induced by electrical stimulation of the brain in a laboratory setting with healthy subjects. "Visions" can be produced by hallucination (including drug-induced). Does either prove anything beyond the level of speculation? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Might I add with my first statement, one man who found differences in Darwin's model molecularly compared to the real life model was from Yale University...? Yes you did and I do believe, although I could be wrong, that his field is geology. Since Darwin published in 1859, I doubt he had much experience with DNA or molecules. Nor do I think the conclusion is supported by the data. If you wish to understand science you should actually study it, not popular books of psuedo-science. Plus examine the difference between faith and dogma; the people who try to prove that man lived with dinosaur do so as because, and I quote: 'If I can't believe this part of the Bible, how can I believe the Jesus part". Clearly, Hovind has no real faith if he needs such proof and is even willing to lie to prove his point basing his science on his extensive doctorate in Biblical education from an online Bible college. Really this is just stupid. The ancient Greeks had faith and made huge strides in science. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
An NDE is an NDE, whether one person has experienced one or not.
Verification to one person is still verification. Also have you heard of the braindead Neurosurgeon? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interesting how Near Death Experiences are remarkably similar to those reported by people experiencing extreme lack of oxygen to the brain
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I saw the Kansas state education board meeting. I saw a "Geology guy" and I saw a guy...who had attended Yale. He was shorter and had a beard....You were wrong.
If you dont believe a discovery was made, that is your choice. But, you still have not given me evidence of me being inaccurate. Also, a reason for talking about scientists of the past can be to remember how people shouldn't be thrown away for being believers in ID. Evolution lacks 100% evidence and even has contradictions. In reality, people put blind faith in such a theory, and now Neo Darwinism has been become a religion. I respect all who Iv been talking to, but trying to argue with reason against arguments which bear no real persuasive characteristics (at least to me) is frustrating. Please don't throw ID out the door. Education is very important, yet so is Wisdom. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
NickMcGuire
on
Sun 01/19/14 10:37 AM
|
|
Blessings everyone. ...and Peace.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is just a thought. But there is a substance found in pretty much everything in different amounts. It is called DMT. In animals it is produced by the pineal gland. If you go to the right place where they use ayawaska then they have found that by using two plant that they can experience hallucinations. It is because of DMT. It has become my understanding that some people believe that DMT could be the substance that causes people to dream.
Now here is the main thought I was getting to. What if when you die the pineal gland releases a high amount of DMT into your brain and this is what causes a number pf those NDE's? I say a number of them because some people report watching surgeries being done on them and are even able to say what went wrong or how things were corrected. DMT probably wouldn't explain that. But it may explain the stories of people who report seeing a bright tunnel of light and angels and everything else they. I personally think NDE stories are interesting. I don't think they prove or disprove anything. They're just really interesting stories. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
kewl thread,, I love this
'verification to one person is still verification' I cannot 'prove' to anyone else that my mom kissed me yesterday, but it still wouldn't make it any less factual or true. I find the idea that science somehow disproves religion or religion disproves science to be odd , personally its like saying because I have been using a certain pattern for my drawings for the past 10 minutes, I have ALWAYS had to have used that pattern. A creator doesn't have boundaries when it comes to their creation. So for me, the conclusions of science come from Gods design, but Gods design is not bound by the conclusions of science. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I cannot 'prove' to anyone else that my mom kissed me yesterday, but it still wouldn't make it any less factual or true. There is no need to "prove" that Mom kissed you yesterday UNLESS you try to convince others. Some may accept your word, others may question your veracity. If a person was with your mother half a continent away they may well doubt the factual truth of your claim. A creator doesn't have boundaries when it comes to their creation. Is this a universal truth that applies to all creators? If so, how can that be known? So for me, the conclusions of science come from Gods design, but Gods design is not bound by the conclusions of science. Other opinions, equally valid for others, are different. f |
|
|
|
|
