[rockytriton]

The bible is a bunch of stories (at least the beginning of it is), which are really just there for people to scare their kids into being good. Sure the writers of it probably had ideas of how they thought things really were, but I don't think anyone actually takes stories like Adam&Eve or Noah's Ark seriously, well maybe except those wacky baptists. I don't think that anyone could really truly believe that they know for sure who/what created everything, they could believe that they think they know, but it's just plain stupidity or arrogance to believe that you know the true answers to these questions.

[Calminian]

Originally Posted by dduckwessel

However, if ever there exists contradictions over science and religion - it has to be religion (interpretation) that is wrong because nature does not lie.

I disagree with this. Scientist have changed their minds on many issues over the years and scientists disagree about many things now. Sure there is a majority opinion, but it has often been the case the majority has been wrong. The truth is, both nature and the Bible have to be interpreted.

And while nature does not lie it can be misinterpreted. Scientists have been wrong about all kinds of things over the years. One scientist told me (actually several), yesterday's science books are today's joke books.

Another problem is the issue of miracles. According to the Bible we have a supernatural God who has performed many miracles (defined as additions to natural processes). Some of these affected the entire universe and some at least the entire earth. If true this would cause problems for those using the scientific method to speculate about the past, as they would be starting with a false presupposition (naturalism).

[IrishEyes]

Originally Posted by rockytriton

...but I don't think anyone actually takes stories like Adam&Eve or Noah's Ark seriously, well maybe except those wacky baptists...

Well, here I am, a wacky Baptist about whom you can laugh. Yes, I believe the Bible. And yes, I do take those stories seriously. Sounds pretty crazy, I'm sure. But checking the evidences on both sides of the fence has brought me to the conclusion that denying God, and all his wacky stories, is really not something I want to do.

[rockytriton]

I wasn't denying God, I was denying the wacky stories which aren't his, they are man's wacky stories. What is this evidence that you have seen on the Adam & Eve story anyway?

[dduckwessel]

Originally Posted by Calminian

I disagree with this. Scientist have changed their minds on many issues over the years and scientists disagree about many things now. Sure there is a majority opinion, but it has often been the case the majority has been wrong. The truth is, both nature and the Bible have to be interpreted.

Can I ask how you interpret the Bible?

And while nature does not lie it can be misinterpreted. Scientists have been wrong about all kinds of things over the years. One scientist told me (actually several), yesterday's science books are today's joke books.

Present scientists are riding on groundwork information from those who have gone before them - therefore, you can't say that knowledge was useless - it had to start somewhere. It has been science that has propelled us to where we are now - had we relied on religion, God knows where we would be, because religion often refuses to believe anything unless it agrees with their interpretation of the Bible - which is wrong by the way.

Another problem is the issue of miracles. According to the Bible we have a supernatural God who has performed many miracles (defined as additions to natural processes). Some of these affected the entire universe and some at least the entire earth. If true this would cause problems for those using the scientific method to speculate about the past, as they would be starting with a false presupposition (naturalism).

I wasn't disputing the miracles 'of God' but I've yet to see a genuine one in religious circles - altho televangelists are always claiming they happen.

[dduckwessel]

Originally Posted by rockytriton

I wasn't denying God, I was denying the wacky stories which aren't his, they are man's wacky stories. What is this evidence that you have seen on the Adam & Eve story anyway?

You want to know about Adam and Eve - ok here goes:

Adam (translated man) was formed 'from the ground' of 'earth' (translated from Hebrew as dust, grey clay) which could also mean 'a particle of dust in the earth') The Bible says he came 'from the ground' as in, just like a 'tree is grown from the ground'. He was the 'only' person who was created this way, the rest of us were all born from other human beings.

While Adam was 'on the earth' for some reason God decided to move him to another location - which was 'a garden' located 'eastward' in Eden.

I discovered through the Biblical law of interpretation that Eden means 'the spirit realm of heaven'. Therefore, God planted a garden 'in heaven' called 'paradise' and there He put Adam.

In other words, God gave Adam immortality.

Who knows how long Adam was gone from the earth - it could have been eons of time.

Eve (not called this until they were moved back to earth and clothed with 'skin') on the otherhand was created 'in paradise' - which explains why women are so much more intuitive than men.

I have more documentation on this if you are interested. My point is that Adam's body was not moulded from clay in one day as Christians believe - it seems more plausible that he began as a basic life form (dust) and evolved. Everything God created He 'grew from the ground' and from what I see in the Bible - Adam was no different.

[dduckwessel]

Originally Posted by NORMANBOND007

Is Science the answer to how we are here and does it tell us why we are here? or Could it be that Religion is the answer of how and why are we here?

Science and religion should be working together except that 'rational' science has a hard time tolerating sometimes 'irrational' religion.

[Guadalupe]

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." ~Albert Einstein

[catholiboy]

The sad truth...
Science and religion are, in some fields, totally mutually incompatible. It doesn't take a multitude of brains to work this out. Equally, it is not possible (as Kant said) to have complete knowledge...think phenomena and noumena. We are a sad limit to the possibility of knowing everything.
However, this paradoxically makes us draw the conclusion that we must treat science and religion equally...even if it means separating them absolutely...
So basically, it is not a case of science or religion. It is a case of: "How do I define knowledge?" or "Noumena or phenomena?"
And yes, with noumena strict doctrine may not be the answer...but then, technically nothing is in an unknowable field.
I'm hoping someone will point out the exception to this rule...

[Tagred]

Originally Posted by Calminian

I'd like to offer some perspective on this. Yes what you say above is true. Now lets look at nations that have been dominate by godless philosophies. Where would you rather live, in India or under a communist regime like the one in N. Korea? Hitler and Stalin were devout evolutionists. Communism was built on atheism and more were murdered by this movement than by all the religious wars of history. It's true, religions and religious people can even do evil. Evil has indeed been done in the name of christianity. But by far the most evil societies are those based on atheism. You merely need to check the guinness book of world records to confirm this.

Actually Hitler had stated many times in his speeches that he was a Christian, and that he believed in God. Whether that was just rhetoric or not is arguable.

Please point out where in the guinness book of records it shows number of dead caused by atheism and number of dead caused by religion.

How many godless philosophical countries are there?

Lets take a look at just a tiny bit of what religion has done in murdering people.

In india, 4 million people were killed precisely because of religious divide

Islam - need we say any more about the twin towers, or about the moors, or what about the Ottoman empire

What about christianity - holy roman empire, spanish & italian inquisitions, crusades, the killing of doctors who perform abortions, salem witch trials.

What about jews, when told to take over some cities, told to utterly destroy them and everyone inside including women and children early in their history (if the bible is to be believed)

Where does the moralisation come then? Stalin done that because he was godless? What about those who do that because they have a god?

The whole concept of good and evil has nothing to do with religion, we don't need any scriptures to define what is good or bad, we can be atheists and still be moral and ethical, religion is not a path to good, nor does (especially the bible) teach much difference in good or bad. Indeed, if you need a handbook in to practising genocide, how to commit rape, destroy cities, vilify those who dont believe the same as you, then the bible has it in spades.

It is because of peoples faith in religion that so many attrocities have happened and will continue. People do evil things because they believe in their religion and think that the scriptures tell them. So the argument that people are bad because they are atheist is utterly wrong. Im an atheist and evolutionist and proud of it, yet i have no compunction to murder, i help people.

The notion of good and bad is a consequence of the evolutionary process not religion.