 |
| Register | Login | |||||
 |
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| Calendar
| Chat
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | ACS | Stats | Color Chart | Search | Photo album |
|
| | ||
|
| Register | Login | |||||
|
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| Calendar
| Chat
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | ACS | Stats | Color Chart | Search | Photo album |
|
| | ||
| 0 users currently in World Affairs/Debate. |
| Acmlm's Board - I3 Archive - World Affairs/Debate - Do you believe that science goes against religion? |
New poll |  | Thread closed |
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 | Add to favorites | Next newer thread | Next older thread |
| User | Post | ||
BPM Red Tektite                 Since: 11-30-05 From: Wyoming Last post: 6705 days Last view: 6705 days |
| ||
| Especially Catholicity, and other Christian faiths? Scientists are always trying to disprove things in the bible by using science, and saying this and this could never happen. I know that most of the Bible, or other spiritual books are not to be taken literally (well, for certain parts, such as the entire old testament), but it always seems sacreligious, because people say the parting of the sea could never happen, and so on. What do you think? | |||
|
Ziff B2BB BACKTOBASICSBITCHES    Since: 11-18-05 From: A room Last post: 6296 days Last view: 6296 days |
| ||
| Not at all. In fact Catholicism is extremely accepting towards modern science. You know, what with a good policy towards evolution and what have you. If anything Catholicism and science are pretty hand in hand right now. | |||
|
BPM Red Tektite Since: 11-30-05 From: Wyoming Last post: 6705 days Last view: 6705 days |
| ||
Originally posted by Ziff Catholics have a good policy towards evolution? Isn't evolution, like, the exact opposite of what Cathlocity teaches? |
|||
|
Sinfjotle Lordly? No, not quite.  Since: 11-17-05 From: Kansas Last post: 6297 days Last view: 6296 days |
| ||
| Nah, there are a lot of parts of evolutions, the scientific definition of evolution is kind of like: "Evolution is just the change from one generation to the next", I wish I could remember the exact definition those people over at talkorgin gave, but I think that was close to it.
Anyways, scientists who just try to prove that the bible could never happen are just louder than some of the scientists that believe that science is God's way of making the universe work. Yeah, I think they can go together pretty well, I mean, science is based on facts and theories, whereas faith is based on... faith... Also, I really don't care much for the old testament, it was written before man thought 2,000 (in numbers) was relatively small in terms of years. (edited by Dracoon on 12-01-05 08:36 PM) |
|||
|
Ziff B2BB BACKTOBASICSBITCHES Since: 11-18-05 From: A room Last post: 6296 days Last view: 6296 days |
| ||
No, Catholicism is one of the few major denominations of Christianity that accepts and tries to work with science.  |
|||
Clockworkz Birdon Since: 11-18-05 Last post: 6296 days Last view: 6296 days |
| ||
| Are we talking just Christiannity, or any religion here? | |||
|
Ziff B2BB BACKTOBASICSBITCHES Since: 11-18-05 From: A room Last post: 6296 days Last view: 6296 days |
| ||
Originally posted by Clockworkz All religions, but I think Christianity (CatholicISM especially) is the main focus. |
|||
|
jeff Double metal axe  Since: 11-17-05 Last post: 6296 days Last view: 6296 days |
| ||
| i never really understood the complaints about this. they're both totally different domains. science is natural order, religion is about nature's purpose.
i won't go into how dumb it is when people complain about evolution though, oy... |
|||
|
Deleted User Banned    Since: 05-08-06 Last post: None Last view: 6296 days |
| ||
| Last thing I saw was that the Vatican apparently has rejected intelligent design. I don't see what the big issue is with evolution, honestly. | |||
geeogree Red Cheep-cheep Since: 11-17-05 Last post: 6310 days Last view: 6296 days |
| ||
| the problem people have with it is the fact that most people that push evolution remove God from the equation... | |||
|
Deleted User Banned Since: 05-08-06 Last post: None Last view: 6296 days |
| ||
Originally posted by geeogree Because if you invalidate the Old Testament you invalidate the Bible as a whole. Evolution is the process in which the non-orderly becomes orderly for no reason, which can not be seen, and will never be seen because if nobody was there, who's there to say it happened? ~ Essay ~ According to evolution, I could go to my backyard with explosives and blowup the pile of wood, if I blow it up time and time again at some point I'll get a five story mansion. You know all that 'proof' they have for evolution like, the 'missing link', when 'man made life', 'length of time it takes for fossilization to take place', and the time taken to create layers of rock are all radical parts of the 'missing picture'. The 'missing link' they claim to have found is none other then a human scull and a monkey jaw bone. Every replica you will find of this peace of 'evidence' will have no indication of it being a fake. Each copy is made without the file marks on it, because they were 'touched up' for the replicas. The only think that can be gathered by this information is that there is no 'missing link' or it is yet to be found. There was a claim in which 'man made life' this actual event was a failure. The 'master mind' behind this 'discovery' didn't really make life; he made something much less then life. He made was one left hand atomic acids and one right hand atomic acid, some form of tar and something else like tar. Tar sticks to broken up organic mutual like atomic acids, which is one of the required elements to sustain life. The number of atomic acids required for life is something like 21 left hand, without these you can't have life. According to evolution, it takes years and years for something to fossilize, this is highly inaccurate. It takes a length of less then 3 years to fossilize something, the exact number escapes me. This can be experimented; you'd need something dead because of cruelty to animal laws, then just stick it in the ground and dig it up in a few years. Many believe that the number of years for water to set down layers of water is at least thousands, but they couldn't be more incorrect. If you take a look at Mt. St Helens, you'll find that the layers laid down by the 'massive' amount of water set down all the layers in a matter of a few days. If it was really thousands of years, that was the shortest thousand years I've ever experienced. For of the parts printed in text books today are the 'missing link', 'man made life in a lab', 'the long wait for fossilization', and 'waters time of cutting away at stone'. Does the 'missing link' really exists, or is he just a fanciful myth thought up by the doubtful. After the failure in the lab, is it really possible to create life in the lab. If it ever takes thousand of years for the fossilizing process, I hope never to have to watch it. Watching something like the carving of stone by water would be quite interesting. Your time has come to chouse your path, is there are many roads which should be taken. I can not answer, for it is your path to follow not mine. |
|||
|
Ziff B2BB BACKTOBASICSBITCHES Since: 11-18-05 From: A room Last post: 6296 days Last view: 6296 days |
| ||
| You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. o.O | |||
Silvershield   580  Since: 11-19-05 From: Emerson, New Jersey Last post: 6308 days Last view: 6296 days |
| ||
I must comment, Bookworm, that your frequent "quotation marks" get "annoying" quite "quickly." 
First, thanks for pointing out that its Catholicism. That was bothering me. More importantly, I see that there is a popular misconception regarding the relationship of Catholicism to Christianity. Here at college I've recognized, moreso than ever, that an unsettling number of people relate Catholicism to Christianity as equivalent ideas. It is absolutely vital to realize that to be Christian is to subscribe to any religious belief system that recognizes Christ as a being to be worshipped, while Catholicism (along with Protestantism and its subreligions) is a branch of Christianity. That is to say, every Catholic is Christian, but not every Christian is Catholic. It's an important distinction. That said, Catholicism is a more liberal branch of Christianty in many ways. We still hold a range of beliefs that will appear to some as overly conservative but, when compared to the fundamentalist churches - those notorious for the whole stupidity of this Intelligent Design debate, as well as many other less than shining examples - we're hardly the bad guys. |
|||
Rydain Sir Kibble Blaze Phoenix Runs with the Dragon Within  Since: 11-18-05 From: State College, PA Last post: 6300 days Last view: 6297 days |
| ||
Originally posted by Bookworm No. Evolution is the change in the genetic makeup of populations over time. Kindly read the talkorigins.org FAQs and understand exactly what it is that you are arguing against. Your concept of evolution is a strawman that has nothing to do with the definition used by actual biologists. |
|||
|
Ziff B2BB BACKTOBASICSBITCHES Since: 11-18-05 From: A room Last post: 6296 days Last view: 6296 days |
| ||
| Bookworm is describing the exact opposite of entropy. An impossibility.
"If you drop an egg on that ground and you see it break You go and get a broom to clean up your mistake, You think to yourself why don't I get an egg that's new? That's entropy or E to the N to the T to the R to the O to the P to the Y." |
|||
|
Silvershield 580 Since: 11-19-05 From: Emerson, New Jersey Last post: 6308 days Last view: 6296 days |
| ||
| The reason I'd find it so hard to argue against evolution, even if my church rejected it, is that it simply makes sense. Given that mutations can occur when genes are passed from one generation to the next - a scientific and undeniable "known" - the idea of evolution logically follows. I'm no biologist, nor am I inclined to science in any form, but I can easily reason that natural selection will gradually create a trend in a population that can be defined as evolution. | |||
|
Deleted User Banned Since: 05-08-06 Last post: None Last view: 6296 days |
| ||
Originally posted by Ziff Shockingly, I agree with Ziff! When I said, I don't see what the big deal is, well, my biggest thing is this, if creationist and ID proponents are going to advocate their ideas, I don't see why they can't do so within the frame of a peer-reviewed journal. The majority of works seemed to have been published in books (which don't have to pass through peer-review, and getting a book published is probably a lot easier than getting a paper published, minus the obvious financial cost). I've talked with some creationists who claimed their work was rejected, yet I asked for copies of the rejection letter, and they wouldn't provide it. Additionally, sometimes papers do have to be rejected a lot and revised, one of my friends has been working for at least two to three years submitting the same paper, but everytime it goes to review, either some new information comes out and he rescinds his submission so he can write it over, or one of the reviewers has another suggestion, etc. My overall point is, if creationism and ID want to be taken seriously as science, then they need to be proposed in a way that actually conforms to science. There was a really good symposium on TV (it was on CSPAN, I think), I don't usually watch those, but I was flipping through the channels, it had scientists and apologists from both sides talking, really fantastic, I'd love to have a transcript. v_v |
|||
|
Ziff B2BB BACKTOBASICSBITCHES Since: 11-18-05 From: A room Last post: 6296 days Last view: 6296 days |
| ||
I'd post my submission to Saeculum but it'd actually be detrimental to me (it would become a previously published work  ). I wrote an essay, not very good mind you, on the topic of the Roman Catholic Church's approach to science in the Middle Ages in comparison to heretical Christian sects and Islam. Basically, the jist of it all is that prior to the rise of the Mamelukes in the major Islamic area of Egypt, they had the hold of knowledge. Mind you, St. Gerbert (later known as Pope Sylvester II), reformed much of the Church's ideas about science and during the Crusades (before then too) the Church-men proposed fascinating ideas. Infact, much onthological arguments put forward by men like Anslem and Aquinas have hilariously close parallels to modern quantum theory. Boethius basically described Shoredinger's cat (mankind is the cat, god is the observer, life is the decaying radioactive). I'm not even going to touch Irish monastacism with regards to scientific innovation, it was really the place of the preservation of Christian learning during the Dark Ages and the massive amount of research done on those places is fascinating. You know, before the Vikings came and torched it all...which WAS pretty damned cool too. Interestingly, it was during the humanist-scientific revolution period when the Church took a regressive stance. During the meteoric rise of astronomy (heh) the Church actually took a massive interest in space. In fact, one of the Papal palaces in Italy is now a world-class telescopic astronomy. I can't remember the name, except that it is the summer manor and is built on the lake where Romulus and Remus supposedly such and suched. Can't quite recall right now.
Anyways, Averroes and other Muslims took an interesting approach to it all. I'll not touch that as it is a large topic. Christian heretical sects like those that followed Jan Hans in Bohemia, the Bogomils, the Cathars, the Manicheans and various others...Wow. Some of them had fascinating ideas with regards to science. Some of them were far-out. Of course, these are all fairly Western/West Orient ideas. China, actually, had really regressive scientific policies. The Emperor tied all the "secrets" of science directly to the state (I suppose the Chinese should really have claim to the phrase "l'Etat c'est moi" ). It caused stagnation of knowledge during the rise of European innovation.
I can't really comment on other societies. I mean, I could talk about the Sun Empires but it would not do the topic any justice  |
|||
|
Cruel Justice I have better things to do. Since: 11-18-05 From: At my house! Last post: 6296 days Last view: 6296 days |
| ||
| If you're thinking about Darwinism, the theory that man came from apes, yes. | |||
|
Deleted User Banned Since: 05-08-06 Last post: None Last view: 6296 days |
| ||
Originally posted by Ziff I don't think the issue is of publication, it's of novelty. Posting it on a messageboard does not constitute a previously published work, AFAIK, but it could possibly constitute that the work in question was no longer a novel contribution, it would depend on how strict the journal in question is. I'm afraid that Acmlm's board doesn't represent the size of distribution that would really be needed for a non-published work's novelty to be violated. But do make sure that you at least make a post or something when your work has been accepted, and when it is officially published, and perhaps even consider distributing copies online thereafter (PDFs if your journal allows them to be distributed). |
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 | Add to favorites | Next newer thread | Next older thread |
| Acmlm's Board - I3 Archive - World Affairs/Debate - Do you believe that science goes against religion? |
| Thread closed |
