Contradictions in the Bible?

[The ClayTaurus]

In a dispute in which words are weapons it pays to choose your shotgun well

I take your point and I might well be making too much of the need for fine definitions but I need to say that a theory isn't "believed" in the spiritual or theological sense. It's conditionally accepted - meaning everyone in the scientific community says, "yes, but" and is busy working at proving it wrong.

At the same time though, it is a belief in order to quell fears about not knowing the answer. It's a supposition. You're just uncomfortable with the fact that your science-based supposition is the same in nature to a bible-based supposition. The true discussion shouldn't be over whether or not this or that is a belief, but rather what the beliefs are based upon. That is where the comparisons (or lack of) lie.

 

[Diuretic]

I see now where you're coming from with this! You are right but only to a point. And by your description Evolution is a belief as well as Creation is a theory.

I can believe within certain boundries, but as God reveals things to me via living/Bible study, I can change inside that belief.

On your second point - I'm glad for you - and that's serious, I'm not into personal attacks unless I get bounced first. Are you familiar with the idea of hermeneutics? I don't mean to sound patronising because I only was introduced to the idea several years ago (never heard of it before then), but that might be something to think of.

Now back to your first point and my continuing point. Science and religion have different purposes, different ways of working, different ways of expressing ideas. The theory of evolution is a temporary, albeit long-lasting to this point, idea in science. I science ideas are held as long as they are useful, they are only a means to and, they are not an end in themselves. They help us move along to find things out. Science will discard a theory quickly if it doesn't meet the needs of science for explanation. That's not belief in the religious sense.

 

[Joz]

.....Now back to your first point and my continuing point. Science and religion have different purposes, different ways of working, different ways of expressing ideas. The theory of evolution is a temporary, albeit long-lasting to this point, idea in science. I science ideas are held as long as they are useful, they are only a means to and, they are not an end in themselves. They help us move along to find things out. Science will discard a theory quickly if it doesn't meet the needs of science for explanation. That's not belief in the religious sense.

Exactly.
But Evolution is still a belief, albeit anchored in science. But Evolution is not provable any more than Creation is. I still stand by that.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

Exactly.
But Evolution is still a belief, albeit anchored in science. But Evolution is not provable any more than Creation is. I still stand by that.

Given enough time, evolution absolutely is provable. Creation is not, save for divine intervention.

 

[Diuretic]

At the same time though, it is a belief in order to quell fears about not knowing the answer. It's a supposition. You're just uncomfortable with the fact that your science-based supposition is the same in nature to a bible-based supposition. The true discussion shouldn't be over whether or not this or that is a belief, but rather what the beliefs are based upon. That is where the comparisons (or lack of) lie.

Humans are capable of believing in science and religion. To do so we need to separate the two. We need to make sure that there's no crossover in understanding.

Science thrives on doubt. It despises supposition. It strives for certainty but knows it will never achieve it. But it's the striving that matters. Science is a process, a journey, a journey without end for a mortal human but a continuing quest for humanity. We search for answers. We wonder. I'm very comfortable with the idea that we need to search for answers to our questions. The answers may be beyond our reckoning as humans. Doesn't that strike you as wonderful? Why should we tell ourselves we know everything because we told ourselves we do? We invented God to help us to close the argument, to make it circular. But science is a completely open argument. It's scary but it's wonderful.

 

[Joz]

Given enough time, evolution absolutely is provable. Creation is not, save for divine intervention.

They will never be able to prove how life started. It will always be a theory/belief. If they knew how it started they would be able to create life and they can't.

 

[Nienna]

Given enough time, evolution absolutely is provable.

I admire your faith.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

Humans are capable of believing in science and religion. To do so we need to separate the two. We need to make sure that there's no crossover in understanding.

Science thrives on doubt. It despises supposition. It strives for certainty but knows it will never achieve it. But it's the striving that matters. Science is a process, a journey, a journey without end for a mortal human but a continuing quest for humanity. We search for answers. We wonder. I'm very comfortable with the idea that we need to search for answers to our questions. The answers may be beyond our reckoning as humans. Doesn't that strike you as wonderful? Why should we tell ourselves we know everything because we told ourselves we do? We invented God to help us to close the argument, to make it circular. But science is a completely open argument. It's scary but it's wonderful.

Sort of a pessimistic view. You make yourself sound like you're on a futile journey.

I'd rather believe that the quest of science is to get all the answers, and that that goal is attainable, given enough time. If you say you know you'll never have all the answers, then doesn't that also close your circle?

 

[Diuretic]

They will never be able to prove how life started. It will always be a theory/belief. If they knew how it started they would be able to create life and they can't.

How do you explain cloning?

 

[The ClayTaurus]

They will never be able to prove how life started. It will always be a theory/belief. If they knew how it started they would be able to create life and they can't.

But evolution has nothign to do with how life was created.

Regardless, just because they can't do it now doesn't mean they can't do it ever.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

I admire your faith.

I should have corrected that to say "provable or disprovable"

 

[Diuretic]

Sort of a pessimistic view. You make yourself sound like you're on a futile journey.

I'd rather believe that the quest of science is to get all the answers, and that that goal is attainable, given enough time. If you say you know you'll never have all the answers, then doesn't that also close your circle?

So? What if it is pessimistic? What if I am on a futile journey? Those are just descriptions.

Of course the quest of science is to get all the answers. Then what? Think carefully - then what?

 

[The ClayTaurus]

How do you explain cloning?

Seriously? Cloning is creating life from life, not creating life from inanimate objects.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

So? What if it is pessimistic? What if I am on a futile journey? Those are just descriptions.

Of course the quest of science is to get all the answers. Then what? Think carefully - then what?

Well I don't know about you, but I plan on getting wasted. :alco:

 

[Diuretic]

Seriously? Cloning is creating life from life, not creating life from inanimate objects.

Good point. Bad example from me.

 

[Diuretic]

Well I don't know about you, but I plan on getting wasted. :alco:

I read an SF novel once that visited that problem and that's exactly what they did!

 

[The ClayTaurus]

I read an SF novel once that visited that problem and that's exactly what they did!

As for what happens when all the answers have been found, that's a different subject. The point is, if you submit to thinking you'll never get all the answers, it provides you the same "luxury" the religion does. The lack of drive to strive for answers. Religion does it because they can fall back on "it's God's way" or similiar. Yours is "well, we'll never get all the answers"

Its contrary to the very spirit of science.

But I will go on a massive bender when all the answers are found, considering I won't have to worry about my hangover

 

[Diuretic]

I love inquiry. I know we'll never find all the answers but that doesn't worry me - I love asking. I don't believe in a god and I don't believe in an afterlife. We're here, we leave, everything else goes on. On a personal level I reject determinism and I know free will is ours.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

I love inquiry. I know we'll never find all the answers but that doesn't worry me - I love asking. I don't believe in a god and I don't believe in an afterlife. We're here, we leave, everything else goes on. On a personal level I reject determinism and I know free will is ours.

So yes or no, does concluding that the answers are unreachable not also close your circle?

 

[Diuretic]

So yes or no, does concluding that the answers are unreachable not also close your circle?

Of course not.