There is no conflict between religion and science. Never has been.

[Seymour Flops]

Just as there is no conflict between basketball and cooking. They are two different fields. No one ever says that you have to be a great home chef to be a basketball player, or that a great basketball player cannot be a person who doesn't know how to make toast. If I described my best basketball moves, it would tell you nothing about how I pan fry chicken.

They are two different fields that never need bother each other.

All of the so-called "conflicts between religion and science," such as Galileo being put under house arrest for claiming that the Earth (and everything else in the universe) goes around the sun while the church taught that the sun (and everything else) goes around the Earth, are actually conflicts between either science or religion and authoritarianism falsely draping itself with either religion or science.

The church had every right to say that the universe revolves around the Earth, and Galileo never tried to stop them, AFAK. Galileo had ever right to say that they universe revolves around the sun, but the Church did not accept that and went authoritarian on him.

Maybe I'm missing an example. If you have an example in which actual religion and actual science conflict, let me know and we can debate.

​

 

[Hollie]

Just as there is no conflict between basketball and cooking. They are two different fields. No one ever says that you have to be a great home chef to be a basketball player, or that a great basketball player cannot be a person who doesn't know how to make toast. If I described my best basketball moves, it would tell you nothing about how I pan fry chicken.

They are two different fields that never need bother each other.

All of the so-called "conflicts between religion and science," such as Galileo being put under house arrest for claiming that the Earth (and everything else in the universe) goes around the sun while the church taught that the sun (and everything else) goes around the Earth, are actually conflicts between either science or religion and authoritarianism falsely draping itself with either religion or science.

The church had every right to say that the universe revolves around the Earth, and Galileo never tried to stop them, AFAK. Galileo had ever right to say that they universe revolves around the sun, but the Church did not accept that and went authoritarian on him.

Maybe I'm missing an example. If you have an example in which actual religion and actual science conflict, let me know and we can debate.

​

What is an actual religion?

 

[rightnow909]

Just as there is no conflict between basketball and cooking. They are two different fields. No one ever says that you have to be a great home chef to be a basketball player, or that a great basketball player cannot be a person who doesn't know how to make toast. If I described my best basketball moves, it would tell you nothing about how I pan fry chicken.

They are two different fields that never need bother each other.

All of the so-called "conflicts between religion and science," such as Galileo being put under house arrest for claiming that the Earth

​

u can't even believe all you hear about Galileo anyway

he was put under house arrest for speaking against doctrines of hte Church, which he had no expertise in, to speak of...

it was far from as bad as you hear... not surprisingly

nothing more L ied about in the world thna the Catholic Church...

(now I will read the rest of your post)

 

[BreezeWood]

,​

There is no conflict between religion and science. Never has been.​

there in lies your fallacy ... and for which religion, conflicts do abound.

 

[rightnow909]

Reason and faith go hand in hand

There is abundant reason in Catholicism

too bad so many refuse to see it even when you try to show them... They just argue their asses off and put up their barriers... i mean keep them up

they think just because not all popes are saintly, we dont have to listen to... the good ones.. the ones who loved God and the Church

and there are more who did than did not

 

[Meriweather]

he was put under house arrest for speaking against doctrines of hte Church, which he had no expertise in, to speak of...

More precisely, Galileo was put under house arrest because he was insisting the Church change the Bible to reflect his theory/discovery that the earth revolved around the sun. Remember, at the time, the Bible was one of the few books around, certainly the most circulated. Galileo thought people should be informed of this new knowledge. The Church, whatever side people chose, pretty much agreed, no matter what advances were made in knowledge, they shouldn't be making changes to the Bible.

What is ironic is that if Galileo could envision a time where there would be just as many science books, articles, as Bibles, he probably wouldn't have persisted in insisting changes needed to be made to the Bible to reflect his theory. (Even Galileo noted his work at the time was just a theory--but one he expected would be proven.)

 

[rightnow909]

More precisely, Galileo was put under house arrest because he was insisting the Church change the Bible to reflect his theory/discovery that the earth revolved around the sun. Remember, at the time, the Bible was one of the few books around, certainly the most circulated. Galileo thought people should be informed of this new knowledge. The Church, whatever side people chose, pretty much agreed, no matter what advances were made in knowledge, they shouldn't be making changes to the Bible.

What is ironic is that if Galileo could envision a time where there would be just as many science books, articles, as Bibles, he probably wouldn't have persisted in insisting changes needed to be made to the Bible to reflect his theory. (Even Galileo noted his work at the time was just a theory--but one he expected would be proven.)

the Church is wise... well, not the novus ordo but the real Catholic Church

not changing the Bible looks like an excellent thought... a thought discarded summarily at Vatican II since it's not good to change Christ's Church either (then there was the Protestant deformation..)

you know, the Catholic Church is like... Rodney Dangerfield comes to mind... Need I say more?

the RCC is damned if it does, damned if it doesn't...

but oh well.. confirms in spades what Jesus said about FEW finding the narrow road... not to mention that You will be hated by all thing...

 

[rightnow909]

,​

There is no conflict between religion and science. Never has been.​

there in lies your fallacy ... and for which religion, conflicts do abound.

explain

are you saying religion is logical and reasonable?

it is...

 

[BreezeWood]

explain

are you saying religion is logical and reasonable?

it is...

explain what -

So now, when God answers the prayers of millions and provides a safe and readily available life-saving vaccine, many who bear the Christian brand are skeptical or downright oppositional — asking why they should believe science and scientists at this particular time.

only when the crucifiers are brought to justice will there be religion and an end to the counterfeit desert aberrations and their congregations.

no, science is not the final answer for spiritual freedom that is for the individuals themselves to resolve.

 

[zaangalewa]

u can't even believe all you hear about Galileo anyway

he was put under house arrest for speaking against doctrines of hte Church, which he had no expertise in, to speak of...

The Chatholic Galileo Gailei had been a rich scienftic superstar in his time of history - specially also because of his of his good connections to the holy church.

it was far from as bad as you hear... not surprisingly

nothing more L ied about in the world thna the Catholic Church...

(now I will read the rest of your post)

It's a wide spreaded nonsense which is said today You could also call it "lie" if the people would not prefer to believe in the nonsense they could know better. He had not been arrested because he said the world turns around the sun. That was taught in all Catholic universities in Europe when Galileo Galileo had been a child. Everyone used there the Copernicanian calulations before Galileo Galilei had been born. The real problem of this good friend of the pope had been another one. When he was old he became a little exentric. He said he is the only one who knows the truth while all others are wrong. At this time wasted a terrible war - the thirty years war - the German countries on the other side of the Alps. This had also been a result because about 100 years before many people believed that Martin Luther is the only one who knows the truth while all others are wrong. This caused a lot of fear and so some people accused him because he said the world turns around itselve - what he revoked. It is said he said in this context: "If I revoke or not: Anyway the Earth turns around." Although he made a complete revocation he had to live in house arrest in the last 9 years of his life. Bad luck ... or good luck ... depends how to see it.

Albert Einstein had been by the way a little dissapointed in this context when he found out that Galileo Galilei never accepted the results of Johannes Kepler (a Protestant who always got his jobs from Catholics). Science itselve is rationality - but scientists are human beings like all others. Same with clerics, judges or anyone else.

 

[BreezeWood]

The Chatholic Galileo Gailei had been a rich scienftic superstar in his time of history - specially also because of his of his good connections to the holy church.



It's a wide spreaded nonsense which is said today You could also call it "lie" if the people would not prefer to believe in the nonsense they could know better. He had not been arrested because he said the world turns around the sun. That was taught in all Catholic universities in Europe when Galileo Galileo had been a child. Everyone used there the Copernicanian calulations before Galileo Galilei had been born. The real problem of this good friend of the pope had been another one. When he was old he became a little exentric. He said he is the only one who knows the truth while all others are wrong. At this time wasted a terrible war - the thirty years war - the German countries on the other side of the Alps. This had also been a result because about 100 years before many people believed that Martin Luther is the only one who knows the truth while all others are wrong. This caused a lot of fear and so some people accused him because he said the world turns around itselve - what he revoked. It is said he said in this context: "If I revoke or not: Anyway the Earth turns around." Although he made a complete revocation he had to live in house arrest in the last 9 years of his life. Bad luck ... or good luck ... depends how to see it.

Albert Einstein had been by the way a little dissapointed in this context when he found out that Galileo Galilei never accepted the results of Johannes Kepler (a Protestant who always got his jobs from Catholics). Science itselve is rationality - but scientists are human beings like all others. Same with clerics, judges or anyone else.

Although he made a complete revocation he had to live in house arrest in the last 9 years of his life.

not in the liest -

zann sugarcoats what was a yellow streak that ran down galileo's back to save his own skin from the vicious, reactionary crucifiers who enjoy nothing less than the persecution and victimization of the innocent that is present in the desert religions to this day.

 

[bodecea]

Just as there is no conflict between basketball and cooking. They are two different fields. No one ever says that you have to be a great home chef to be a basketball player, or that a great basketball player cannot be a person who doesn't know how to make toast. If I described my best basketball moves, it would tell you nothing about how I pan fry chicken.

They are two different fields that never need bother each other.

All of the so-called "conflicts between religion and science," such as Galileo being put under house arrest for claiming that the Earth (and everything else in the universe) goes around the sun while the church taught that the sun (and everything else) goes around the Earth, are actually conflicts between either science or religion and authoritarianism falsely draping itself with either religion or science.

The church had every right to say that the universe revolves around the Earth, and Galileo never tried to stop them, AFAK. Galileo had ever right to say that they universe revolves around the sun, but the Church did not accept that and went authoritarian on him.

Maybe I'm missing an example. If you have an example in which actual religion and actual science conflict, let me know and we can debate.

​

I remember a minister once saying that Science explains how and Religion explains why.

 

[Seymour Flops]

More precisely, Galileo was put under house arrest because he was insisting the Church change the Bible to reflect his theory/discovery that the earth revolved around the sun.

Well, that is interesting. Of course the people who think that a key role of science is to attack religion would spin it that Galileo was arrested for disagreeing, not for trying to change the bible.

His house arrest was pretty lenient; he continued to publish. Still, any sort of punishment for giving one's opinion, no matter how silly, is authoritarian.

Remember, at the time, the Bible was one of the few books around, certainly the most circulated. Galileo thought people should be informed of this new knowledge. The Church, whatever side people chose, pretty much agreed, no matter what advances were made in knowledge, they shouldn't be making changes to the Bible.

What is ironic is that if Galileo could envision a time where there would be just as many science books, articles, as Bibles, he probably wouldn't have persisted in insisting changes needed to be made to the Bible to reflect his theory. (Even Galileo noted his work at the time was just a theory--but one he expected would be proven.)

It never was proven, of course, because it was false. The universe no more revolves around the Sun than it does the Earth. Something that the people who want there to be a conflict between religion and science never acknowledge.

 

[onefour1]

Pilate asked Jesus, What is truth?

Doctrine and Covenants 93:24-25
24 And truth is knowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come;
25 And whatsoever is more or less than this is the spirit of that wicked one who was a liar from the beginning.

So, did mankind evolve from something that crawled out of sea and eventually turned into mankind over millions of years of evolution or was mankind created after the image of God and by God from the dust of the earth and mankind's spirit?

These two explanations contradict each other and both cannot be true.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

So, did mankind evolve from something that crawled out of sea and eventually turned into mankind over millions of years of evolution or was mankind created after the image of God and by God from the dust of the earth and mankind's spirit?

These two explanations contradict each other and both cannot be true.

Actually there's a "middle path" there. Maybe God decided to "make humans" using the amazing technology He invented called "Evolution".

Think of a man who makes watches for a living. If he is required to constantly move the hands to make sure it is telling the right time it isn't a very good watch. But if he winds it up and it runs on its own it's a REALLY GOOD WATCH.

Which kind of watch would God make?

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

I remember a minister once saying that Science explains how and Religion explains why.

That makes sense. And the latter is often our "just-so" stories.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Actually there's a "middle path" there. Maybe God decided to "make humans" using the amazing technology He invented called "Evolution".

Think of a man who makes watches for a living. If he is required to constantly move the hands to make sure it is telling the right time it isn't a very good watch. But if he winds it up and it runs on its own it's a REALLY GOOD WATCH.

Which kind of watch would God make?

The latter, of course. He might even make that watch solar powered and capable of self-reproducing other watches.

You know . . . like life on Earth.

 

[onefour1]

Actually there's a "middle path" there. Maybe God decided to "make humans" using the amazing technology He invented called "Evolution".

Think of a man who makes watches for a living. If he is required to constantly move the hands to make sure it is telling the right time it isn't a very good watch. But if he winds it up and it runs on its own it's a REALLY GOOD WATCH.

Which kind of watch would God make?

According to the Bible, God's creation took 7 days not millions of years. However, those 7 days were not 7 days as we now count our days. God did not create the sun and moon and place it in relation with the earth until the 4th day of creation. So we know that the timing of the creation story was not according to the days we now have that are in relation to the earth rotating on its axis in relation to the sun. The Apostle Peter taught:

2 Peter 3:8
8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

According to Peter, a day with the Lord is as a thousand years. So the 7 days of creation is probably 7000 years. It is definitely not millions of years. However, the creation of Adam and Even occurred in one of those days or within 1000 years. Not millions of years. On that 6th day of creation God describes Adam's creation as follows:

Genesis 1:26-27
26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Here we read that God created man after his own image. Are we to believe that his image was a small sea creature and then changed into a million other images before it was what we now see as a man today? You can believe that but not me. God never said he created any other of his creatures to be in his image except mankind.

Genesis 2:7
7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Does this sound like man evolved from other species? God actually formed man from the dust of ground. He did not cause man to be evolved from other creatures. Upon forming man of the dust of ground, he breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and MAN became a living soul. No evolution about it.

What makes you think that evolution is a better watch than God creating man from the dust of the ground? God isn't constantly moving our hands but has given us free will to choose as we will. Your example is meaningless to me.

 

[Hollie]

Well, that is interesting. Of course the people who think that a key role of science is to attack religion would spin it that Galileo was arrested for disagreeing, not for trying to change the bible.

His house arrest was pretty lenient; he continued to publish. Still, any sort of punishment for giving one's opinion, no matter how silly, is authoritarian.

It never was proven, of course, because it was false. The universe no more revolves around the Sun than it does the Earth. Something that the people who want there to be a conflict between religion and science never acknowledge.

You should be honest with yourself and others. For centuries, the Church insisted that planets revolved around the earth. I'm delighted to inform you that biological organisms evolve, we do, in fact, live in a heliocentric planetary system and the earth is in fact, Not Flat.


“It is crucial for creationists that they convince their audience that evolution is not scientific, because both sides agree that creationism is not.”
-Duane Gish

Unfortunate as it may be for religion, science clearly does rule out various religious etiological myths such as origin fables. This often forces the revision of historical tales and fables used in the mythology of a religion. A 6,000 year old planet, a global flood 4,000 years ago, a Flat Earth etc., clearly don’t coexist with science. And when cosmologies are given in ancient ‘holy texts’ that involve solid heavens and firmaments, science shows them to be unqualifiedly false as descriptions of the physical world.

Religion and science conflict. if you want to make the case that science makes the world understandable in some way, then so much the worse for religion. Christianity, among other religions, has been at odds with the successes of science for a very long time. The religions have evolved <—-(there’s that word) as science has opened our understanding of nature.

 

[onefour1]

The latter, of course. He might even make that watch solar powered and capable of self-reproducing other watches.

You know . . . like life on Earth.

He might even make that watch to be much like himself and not like the other beasts of the field.