Jusunlee.com Forums - The Science of God.

Pages (2): [1] 2 »
Show all 30 posts from this thread on one page

Jusunlee.com Forums (https://www.jusunlee.com/forums/index.php)
- Enlightenment (https://www.jusunlee.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?forumid=17)
-- The Science of God. (https://www.jusunlee.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=10903)

Posted by Spartan on 02-23-2003 06:07 AM:

The Science of God.

I just read this amazing book. Its about how science and religion really never contradict each other but in fact complement each other and the people who say that science disproves religion, or vice versa, say so out of ignorance, and lack of understanding of the other field.

The title is "The Science of God" and its by some professor from MIT. I forgot the name because it was a library book. He proves that you cannot take the Bible literally, and that possibly the six days before man were truly eons. Tons of other very interesting stuff, and things that you'll go like "Wow, that's true!"

I'm really not the one to explain it. I'm the sort of person who gets it, but can't repeat it, you know? Anyhow, I suggest this as definite reading. Sort of cancelled out any doubts I struggled with as a Christian. Now its all about living the straight path.

If you actually have read or went out to get it, and then read it, I would definitley like to hear your opinion and whether you agreed with the book or not.

__________________
**rei ayanami is hot**

Posted by requiem on 02-23-2003 05:35 PM:

How long is it, might I ask.

__________________
When the day is done
you are all that is left

Posted by .aS.|5p!7f!|23 on 02-23-2003 05:43 PM:

quote:
people who say that science disproves religion, or vice versa, say so out of ignorance, and lack of understanding of the other field.

i say so out of proof from science. im sure many of the points in the book make sense but the one thing that totally contradicts the bible that is proven is evolution. did the book mention that? im jw cause id like to know what his argument was about it. sounds like an interesting book.

Posted by PsychoSnowman on 02-23-2003 06:41 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by .aS.|5p!7f!|23
i say so out of proof from science. im sure many of the points in the book make sense but the one thing that totally contradicts the bible that is proven is evolution. did the book mention that? im jw cause id like to know what his argument was about it. sounds like an interesting book.

no, that would be another statement that would be perceived as ignorance. It's not that harsh of a term and i don't see why people get so offended about it because it's a very valid descriptor (not saying you are offended cause id on't think you were). Perhaps a better word that could be used would be naivity, as in naive.

By saying science contradicts religion, we are saying so only because we haven't realized the "greater scope" of the two approaches, we haven't realized how the two can connect and hence because we are speaking on terms that are not perceived as knowledgable than one who does realize it, then it can be arguable called ignorance, or "lack of understanding."

Anyway, evolution complements religion in probably micro evolutionary forms because i don't think that the bible or any other relgiion would endorse macro evolution (species evolving to another completely different species), but they do admit that we have "evolved" from what we used to be. But, if that's their only argument against it i don't htink it's that great....it's picking and choosing what complements and then just subsuming all of science (even the ones that were just......left out for hte sake of consistency) into something that complements religion.

I'm sure it's a good book, sounds interesting, i might check it out. MIT folks are rather smart hehe

__________________
Long messages do not equal aggravation of any sort,
rather they reflect nothing more than a response of insight
that should always be read in a matter-of-fact tone.

"Those womyn that seek equality with men, lack determination."

"I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be wrong."
-Cromwell

Posted by requiem on 02-23-2003 07:22 PM:

Psycho, just for reference, the noun of "naive" is "naivete" with an umlat (double dot) over the i and an accent over the last e (accent is optional but umlat is not)

__________________
When the day is done
you are all that is left

Posted by PsychoSnowman on 02-23-2003 07:27 PM:

ah, that's interesting. Thank you.

Posted by .aS.|5p!7f!|23 on 02-23-2003 09:51 PM:

i just dont have any religious beliefs. what im saying may be naive to you, but i feel the same way about what you are saying. i prefer not to debate over the subject because ive already done it once with a very in depth post and have already posted my views on the subject. if u wana see how i feel click here.

Posted by PsychoSnowman on 02-23-2003 09:55 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by .aS.|5p!7f!|23
i just dont have any religious beliefs. what im saying may be naive to you, but i feel the same way about what you are saying. i prefer not to debate over the subject because ive already done it once with a very in depth post and have already posted my views on the subject. if u wana see how i feel click here.

i'm in the same boat you are in. I was just answering for hte other side since you asked. This wasn't leading anywhere towards a debate...and yes, i participated in that thread as well....as many others.

It's not naive to me, it's naive in teh point of view i answered in. I'm atheist. I was just answering the question..

Posted by .aS.|5p!7f!|23 on 02-23-2003 09:58 PM:

o alrite cool. i always feel so obligated to start a big debate here whenever anythiing religious comes up cause im one of the few who arent.

Posted by requiem on 02-23-2003 10:20 PM:

Every person who has replied to this thread is atheist. You're not alone. Not here anyway.

__________________
When the day is done
you are all that is left

Posted by Alchemist on 02-24-2003 12:10 AM:

Ever see the movie Logan's Run?

Posted by Spartan on 02-25-2003 06:07 AM:

quote:
Originally posted by requiem
How long is it, might I ask.

The book itself is about 220 pages. I found out the author info and publisher if you want.

The Science of God - Gerald L. Schroeder (Ph. D. Physics, use to teach at M.I.T., now teaches in Israel. His works have been published in Time, Newsweek, and leading newspapers.)

(Publisher: The Free Press)

I don't see how evolution disproves the Bible. If you speak of creationism vs. evolution, than I can say something.

First we must get the concept of time. Time is relative. I really don't feel like explaining this concept so read it. In other words, you can't take the Bible literally. (ex. God said that Adam would die if he ate from the tree, did Adam die? No, he lives for 930 years.)

In Genesis the word creation does not pertain to life. It pertains to how God created the world and the world itself brought forth life.

3.8 billion years ago there were only single celled life. Over 3.2 billion years there is no change in the fossil record except for Ediacaran Fauna. 530 million years ago in the Cambrian era, a sudden explosion of life occurs. The Cambrian explosion is one of the century's greatest discoveries.

The Bible states that the beginning of life came right after water. The fourth day there is no mention of change in life. The 5th day the seas "swarm(ed) with moving things that have life." Genesis 1:11.

After the cambrain explosion, no new phyla are ever formed.

Darwin did not base his findings in fossil records. He made his conclusions after observations of generations of pigeons. He made an assumption that if changes could be seen in just 10 generations that all animals must have evolved to their current forms. Darwin realized that the fossil record had too many holes to use as his support. Thomas Henry Huxley had no problem using it even if there were many jumps. There is no evolutionary tree backed up with fossil records. (Hence "the missing-link" is still being searched for.)

If we are to follow fossil records than we must believe that there are just jumps in evolution. How did insects develop from no wings to wings of almost 30 centimeters in span?

The ichthyosaurus has no preceding ancestors and comes into the Jurassic with fully developed fins and paddles and a bill. Angiosperms have no preceding ancestors that tell of their impending explosion.

Evolution does not disprove the Bible.

(I probably fucked that up, so you'd be safer reading the damn book.)

Edit: To the last of my knowledge it was still the THEORY of evolution.THEORY

__________________
**rei ayanami is hot**

Posted by PsychoSnowman on 02-25-2003 09:44 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by Spartan

Edit: To the last of my knowledge it was still the THEORY of evolution.THEORY

nobody cares, everyone knows that. Same thign with creation, so it's not like you are gaining any ground by stating this.

Posted by daNNy LuV 1TYM on 02-26-2003 06:25 AM:

you make some good observations, but i don't think the author's goal was to try to convert atheists. rather, i think the author might have been trying to quell some of the doubts christians have when they think about science. anyway, a deacon (i think...some clergy member) at my church told me a few years ago that there is no conflict between science and religion. at the time i was going through my "questioning" period in exploring my faith, as i'm sure most religious people have done, and i didn't understand it at the time, but i think i do now. this book sounds really interesting and i definitely want to read it sometime

Posted by PsychoSnowman on 02-26-2003 09:50 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by daNNy LuV 1TYM
you make some good observations, but i don't think the author's goal was to try to convert atheists.

i didn't say that....and of course that's the not the books' goal.

Posted by .aS.|5p!7f!|23 on 02-26-2003 11:45 PM:

quote:
To the last of my knowledge it was still the THEORY of evolution.THEORY

in the field of science, the word theory is used to describe a group of findings that are all linked but cannot be proven 100% due to lack of advances in technology. for example - theory of gravity, atomic theory. you may respond by saying what about others like the big bang theory, but after doing some research, i found "big bang explanation" used instead of theory on 2 out of the three sites i looked on.

if you really believe that evolution is not real, i cannot relate to anything you are trying to get past me. i know that you mentioned that the bible can be interpreted literally and figuratively, but why was this portion of the bible taken figurativly until it was disproven. (i hesitate to say disproven becuase im not looking to offend anyone, i guess questioned would be a better word)

Posted by Spartan on 02-27-2003 03:13 AM:

Disproven? I don't speak for anyone but I really wouldn't be offended. I'd like to know how it was.

__________________
**rei ayanami is hot**

Posted by Spartan on 02-27-2003 03:14 AM:

quote:
Originally posted by PsychoSnowman
nobody cares, everyone knows that. Same thign with creation, so it's not like you are gaining any ground by stating this.

I'm not trying to gain ground, but get people interested in the book.

__________________
**rei ayanami is hot**

Posted by yOOnsk on 02-27-2003 03:59 AM:

quote:
Originally posted by .aS.|5p!7f!|23
in the field of science, the word theory is used to describe a group of findings that are all linked but cannot be proven 100% due to lack of advances in technology. for example - theory of gravity, atomic theory.

As far as I know, gravity isn't a theory, it's a scientific LAW that's proven with a mathematical equation. However, evolution and creationism are both THEORIES on the origin of the universe. We've grown up in this society believing that evolution is FACT. You can look at any science textbooks and no where in there do they state that evolution is a THEORY, or that scientists aren't 100% sure that the earth is 4.5 billion yrs old. They simply want you to accept this as the truth and don't even attempt to present the other side of the story. The whole world is biased towards believing in evolution, even though over 90% of the population believe in some sort of God. There is NO evidence watsoever that backs up evolution. No links that prove we came from monkeys or from microscopic organisms. Any evidence that was ever presented was proven to be either false or hoaxed.

People that follow evolution say that "faith" is the only thing that creationists have to back up their beliefs. Ask yourself this: What requires more faith? believing that a loving God perfectly designed us, our bodies, our cells, our genetic code, so that all parts of our living body would work together and function as one organism. Or that, over billions and billions of years, life mysteriously formed on this planet from organic elements in the water and evolved into the complex, trillion celled beings that we are today.

__________________
"A man of many companions may come to ruin,
but there is a friend who sticks closer than a brother."

[ Proverbs 18:24 ]

Posted by requiem on 02-27-2003 04:14 AM:

quote:
Originally posted by yOOnsk
As far as I know, gravity isn't a theory, it's a scientific LAW that's proven with a mathematical equation. However, evolution and creationism are both THEORIES on the origin of the universe. We've grown up in this society believing that evolution is FACT. You can look at any science textbooks and no where in there do they state that evolution is a THEORY, or that scientists aren't 100% sure that the earth is 4.5 billion yrs old. They simply want you to accept this as the truth and don't even attempt to present the other side of the story. The whole world is biased towards believing in evolution, even though over 90% of the population believe in some sort of God. There is NO evidence watsoever that backs up evolution. No links that prove we came from monkeys or from microscopic organisms. Any evidence that was ever presented was proven to be either false or hoaxed.

People that follow evolution say that "faith" is the only thing that creationists have to back up their beliefs. Ask yourself this: What requires more faith? believing that a loving God perfectly designed us, our bodies, our cells, our genetic code, so that all parts of our living body would work together and function as one organism. Or that, over billions and billions of years, life mysteriously formed on this planet from organic elements in the water and evolved into the complex, trillion celled beings that we are today.

Wow man. Wow.
I ask you this then, although I'm still wowing.
What is the evidence for creationism?
*runs away from can of worms*

Edit: Please don't say the Bible.

__________________
When the day is done
you are all that is left

All times are GMT. The time now is 10:55 PM.

Pages (2): [1] 2 »
Show all 30 posts from this thread on one page