 |
| 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 | ||
|
cds113089 Newcomer                 Since: 11-18-05 From: Chicago Last post: 6900 days Last view: 6900 days |
| ||
Originally posted by SilvershieldOriginally posted by drjayphdTo 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 |
| ||
Originally posted by cds113089For 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 cds113089He 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 |
| ||
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 |
| ||
| 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 |
| ||
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 |
| ||
| 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 |
| ||
| 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: 6466 days |
| ||
| 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 |
| ||
| 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: 6466 days |
| ||
| 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 |
| ||
| 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: 6466 days |
| ||
Originally posted by Ziff 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 |
| ||
Originally posted by Bookworm 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." 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. 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: 6466 days |
| ||
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 |
| ||
| 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: 6466 days |
| ||
Originally posted by Bookworm 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.
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.
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 |
| ||
| 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: 6466 days |
| ||
Originally posted by Ziff 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 |
| ||
| 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 |
| ||
| 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 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 |
