(Link to AcmlmWiki) Offline: thank ||bass
Register | Login
Views: 13,040,846
Main | Memberlist | Active users | Calendar | Chat | Online users
Ranks | FAQ | ACS | Stats | Color Chart | Search | Photo album
11-01-24 12:18 AM
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 6Add to favorites | Next newer thread | Next older thread
User Post
cds113089
Newcomer


 





Since: 11-18-05
From: Chicago

Last post: 6900 days
Last view: 6900 days
Posted on 12-04-05 06:36 PM Link
Originally posted by Silvershield
Originally posted by drjayphd
cds113089: Catholics believe that you cannot earn your way into heaven and that the only way to get to heaven is by the salvation Christ offered.

...which is precisely what rankles me about fundamentalist Christianity, the belief that acceptance is all you need. But that's another topic for another thread.
To look to a cliche for an example, would anyone here suppose that a person from some distant, uncivilized part of the world is destined to burn for eternity just because he hasn't accepted Christ, even though he has no contact with Christianity (or any Western religion, for that matter)? To live a good life and treat one's neighbors with unconditional love is all that God asks of us, though to believe in Him makes that path infinitely easier.



Romans 1:20 (NIV)..."For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse."

btw: Catholics are in no way fundamentalists.


(edited by cds113089 on 12-04-05 05:38 PM)
Silvershield

580








Since: 11-19-05
From: Emerson, New Jersey

Last post: 6477 days
Last view: 6465 days
Posted on 12-04-05 07:13 PM Link
Originally posted by cds113089
Romans 1:20 (NIV)..."For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse."
For reference, the whole passage is, "From the creation of the world His invisible attributes, that is, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what He has made. As a result, people are without excuse. For though they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God or show gratitude. Instead, their thinking became nonsense, and their senseless minds were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man, birds, four-footed animals, and reptiles."

To clarify the passage, certain unspecified peoples rejected the Christian God and chose to worship animals or humanity instead. That's reasonable enough to understand. But, I would interpret the passage to mean that, after said peoples rejected Christianity, God made no further effort to manifest Himself conspicuously to them. The forefathers in those groups had the opportunity to be Christian but are at fault for defering it, but how can you damn every descendent of those tribes as well? Jesus hasn't come down from heaven to convert those non-believers in the present day; they are essentially paying for the sins of their fathers, according to your belief. Tell me if you need me to clarify my line of thought at all.

Originally posted by cds113089
btw: Catholics are in no way fundamentalists.
He wasn't referring to Catholicism, but to fundamentalist Christians. Which, as you pointed out, Catholics are certainly not. Thankfully.
Ziff
B2BB
BACKTOBASICSBITCHES


 





Since: 11-18-05
From: A room

Last post: 6465 days
Last view: 6465 days
Posted on 12-04-05 07:30 PM Link


Why are you guys taking a scriptural venue to this argument? Using early Church Fathers is so much more productive.
Silvershield

580








Since: 11-19-05
From: Emerson, New Jersey

Last post: 6477 days
Last view: 6465 days
Posted on 12-04-05 07:32 PM Link
Then say your piece, Ziff. I'm not all too fond of resorting to the Bible, in all honesty, because I'd question (or outright deny) whether it should be taken literally. And, when not taken literally, the various interpretations are too subjective.
Ziff
B2BB
BACKTOBASICSBITCHES


 





Since: 11-18-05
From: A room

Last post: 6465 days
Last view: 6465 days
Posted on 12-04-05 08:02 PM Link
Sorry SS, not tonight

I'm really too tired of having to refer to St. Augustine and his contemporaries or resorting to quoting the edicts of the Roman hierarchy in order to prove justifications of the early Church. If you want to talk about this in more depth, I'd be pleased to do so on AIM, but as it stands currently I'm obscenely tired of having to write pre-meditated essays on the topic. Real-time discussion, I feel, would be delicious.
Arwon

Bazu


 





Since: 11-18-05
From: Randwick, Sydney, NSW, Australia

Last post: 6466 days
Last view: 6466 days
Posted on 12-05-05 08:42 AM Link
I don't suppose anyone in the anti-evolution camp has any explaination as to why this debate only still exists in America, alone among first world countries? Why is it only in America where large numbers of christians reject basic science in this manner?
C:/xkas bio.asm
Compiled ASM code








Since: 11-17-05

Last post: 6465 days
Last view: 6465 days
Posted on 12-05-05 10:01 PM Link
science and religion serve the same prupose, to discover the unknow, science use a logical way, and religion a spiritual way. the reason of this reject is because sometime science prove that religion are wrong, let take from example the source of life. science found that It caused by underwater volcano, while religion though its god.the problem is that fact 'destroy' their current Idea of this,so they prefer reject the Idea,and by this, reject the truth


(edited by Bio on 12-05-05 09:01 PM)
(edited by Bio on 12-07-05 03:52 PM)
Deleted User
Banned


 





Since: 05-08-06

Last post: None
Last view: 6465 days
Posted on 12-07-05 12:05 PM Link
Bio you talk about 'that fact' the 'fact' is, it is not a fact. Science so called is not in almost all ways is not fact, unless it can be proven. Thus that underwater stuff is utter crap, this theory is 'forced' on children as fact.

EditPs. Happy Ziff? :|


(edited by Bookworm on 12-07-05 04:40 PM)
Ziff
B2BB
BACKTOBASICSBITCHES


 





Since: 11-18-05
From: A room

Last post: 6465 days
Last view: 6465 days
Posted on 12-07-05 04:42 PM Link
Neither of you make grammar.

Could you please...at least try to make grammar!

If you please grammar it shall not harm you. For, if you please His Correctness, it makes your posts readable.
Deleted User
Banned


 





Since: 05-08-06

Last post: None
Last view: 6465 days
Posted on 12-07-05 07:43 PM Link
I'd like a reference on this underwater volcano idea.
Ziff
B2BB
BACKTOBASICSBITCHES


 





Since: 11-18-05
From: A room

Last post: 6465 days
Last view: 6465 days
Posted on 12-07-05 08:39 PM Link
I think he's talking about the concept of early life evolving around the mineral rich deep-sea volcanoes, or at least them offering us one look at the biological system.

Life was created by a random string of molecules eventually gaining organic properties before membrane structures spontoneously generated, allowing for the eventual development of the cellular structure. Or some whackey thing like that!
Deleted User
Banned


 





Since: 05-08-06

Last post: None
Last view: 6465 days
Posted on 12-08-05 08:59 AM Link
Originally posted by Ziff
I think he's talking about the concept of early life evolving around the mineral rich deep-sea volcanoes, or at least them offering us one look at the biological system.

Life was created by a random string of molecules eventually gaining organic properties before membrane structures spontoneously generated, allowing for the eventual development of the cellular structure. Or some whackey thing like that!


Ah, I thought when he referred to an underwater volcano, he meant something LOL VOLCANO BLEW UP LIFE STARTS. You could call it the Volcano Underwater Violently Life Accelerates theory... or VULVA for short. :O
drjayphd

Torosu
OW! BURNY!








Since: 11-18-05
From: CT

Last post: 6468 days
Last view: 6465 days
Posted on 12-08-05 06:04 PM Link
Originally posted by Bookworm
Bio you talk about 'that fact' the 'fact' is, it is not a fact. Science so called is not in almost all ways is not fact, unless it can be proven. Thus that underwater stuff is utter crap, this theory is 'forced' on children as fact.

EditPs. Happy Ziff? :|


If you're referring to the usage of the word "theory", allow this handy online dictionary to end that whole train of thought right... about... now.

1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena."
(sneeep)
6. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.


As you will notice, the SCIENTIFIC definition of theory, #1, comes above the "but it's not a FACT!" definition of theory, #6. That's from the American Heritage Dictionary. No, not the medical or scientific dictionary; the AHMD definition comes later in the page.

Ergo, no one who knows anything on the topic is SAYING evolution is a fact. It is a SCIENTIFIC THEORY. Not a "well, here's an idea" theory.

Gratuitous ad hominem: Why do you hate science?

cds: Exactly why I said fundie Christians, not Catholics. As SS said, "thankfully."
Deleted User
Banned


 





Since: 05-08-06

Last post: None
Last view: 6465 days
Posted on 12-08-05 06:42 PM Link
Dinosaurs and Human Footprints Side-by-Side?

Sea-monster or Shark?

Dinosaurs, the word had no meaning before the 1800, but infact...


Why bother, people hate Christians.

And yes, I believe religion brings out the truth in science, and the other way around.
Ziff
B2BB
BACKTOBASICSBITCHES


 





Since: 11-18-05
From: A room

Last post: 6465 days
Last view: 6465 days
Posted on 12-08-05 06:51 PM Link
Sea monster or shark...Wait. What does this have to do with this thread?
Deleted User
Banned


 





Since: 05-08-06

Last post: None
Last view: 6465 days
Posted on 12-09-05 08:24 AM Link
Originally posted by Bookworm
Dinosaurs and Human Footprints Side-by-Side?


It's a heel print, the shape of the footprint is a little offkilter anyway, and you'd have to ask, why is there only one of said track in the entire series? Refer to GSPaul's Predatory Dinosaurs of the World for more information and discussion on the Paluxi track series.


Dinosaurs, the word had no meaning before the 1800, but infact...


It had no meaning before 1842, that's because it was a term coined in order to describe a group of animals being discovered in european fossil deposits (i.e. Hylaeosaurus, Iguanodon, and Megalosaurus at the time). Words and phrases have to be composed at some point.


Why bother, people hate Christians.


I should start using this to respond to every question in debates from now on. "Why bother, people hate my viewpoint"~ Oh please, if you can defend yourself, you can, if you can't, you can't. Personally, I bear no hatred towards Christianity or any other religion, and I suspect very few if any of the actual relatively mature members here do either.

Additionally, you might look at this Webpage from the site you mentioned, it retracts the idea that those are human footprints. Click Here. And the second link you linked to completely tears apart the idea.



(edited by Thayer on 12-09-05 07:29 AM)
Ziff
B2BB
BACKTOBASICSBITCHES


 





Since: 11-18-05
From: A room

Last post: 6465 days
Last view: 6465 days
Posted on 12-09-05 06:12 PM Link
Well dino and saur were both real terms To say that it was completly pulled out of the air would be an unfair assessment to Latinists like myself!
Deleted User
Banned


 





Since: 05-08-06

Last post: None
Last view: 6465 days
Posted on 12-09-05 08:37 PM Link
Originally posted by Ziff
Well dino and saur were both real terms To say that it was completly pulled out of the air would be an unfair assessment to Latinists like myself!

I didn't say that they were merely pulled from the air, I used "composed", to indicate that it was formed.
Gavin

Cheep-cheep
Vandalism is not tolerated


 





Since: 11-17-05
From: IL, USA

Last post: 6542 days
Last view: 6485 days
Posted on 12-09-05 11:54 PM Link
yes i do blevie scinece goes against religion. every time religion says something science tries to make up a bunch pf reports to make it sound not true. they are going against god. scientists shouldnt be able to talk about religion openly like that.
Skreename

Giant Red Paratroopa


 





Since: 11-18-05

Last post: 6471 days
Last view: 6465 days
Posted on 12-10-05 12:35 AM Link
Okay... Religion has been saying things since the dawn of civilization. I don't think scientists have been trying to disprove said things since the dawn of civilization. The goal of science is to understand how things happen; why they happen is still up to personal belief. The original goal of the study of evolution could be seen as "God's method of creation"; instead, people constantly insist they're mutually exclusive. Just because some things are proven wrong does not mean people seek to do such.

I personally believe that science and religion are completely seperate ideas. Of course, I also believe that the original point of religion was to explain away the unexplainable ("Why does lightning happen?") and things of that nature, but it also serves to give people something to follow. It should by all means be possible for them to exist side-by-side.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6Add 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


ABII

Acmlmboard 1.92.999, 9/17/2006
©2000-2006 Acmlm, Emuz, Blades, Xkeeper

Page rendered in 0.029 seconds; used 444.30 kB (max 571.91 kB)