Are science and religion incompatible?

Not committed to ANY RELIGION.




Following Christ's teachings is called Christianity. It's a religion. You are committed to a religion. Religion is not a bad word. It's okay to call your religion a religion. It's not okay to say that it isn't.

Welcome to the Kevn Klein experience, where day is night and up is down.

~Ulrika~

Excellent, I assume that you would apply this reasoning to your belief in God as well?



Utter load of nonsense. If you tell the child that the evidence supports such ideas it's science. Not religion. It's not a matter of faith because "appearances can be deceiving" it's based on evidence and hasn't been disproved.



It isn't honest because it isn't guessing. It's called the scientific method. We have much evidence of the big bang. There are a number of ideas about the material that existed before the big bang. Your lack of knowledge about a subject doesn't disprove it.




As long as any religious texts used in the classroom, for any reason, come with the same disclaimer. Would you support such a disclaimer on the Bible? As to your assertion that scientists are not doing good science, a quick read over your posts shows you don't have a clue about what they are doing. Just re-read your quote above, "we weren't there, we can't recreate it, so it's still a matter of guessing." It's not guessing. It's based on observation, mathematics, physics, and experimentation.

I promise this is the last of my critiques of Kevn's total lack of understanding concerning science.

1) There are NO Laws in science. Just theories.
2) Scientific data becomes scientific data after it has been subjected to falsification, not before.
3) How could you possibly know that much of the testing is unpublished if it's unpublished? And how do you decide which theories are "popular"?
4) Your portrayal of the "scientific community" is simplistic and two dimensional. The idea that everyone somehow knows everyone else and is scared to upset anyone is just naive. There are millions of scientists in the world today. A chemist in Mumbai is as likely to know a chemist in Juneau as two politicians in the same cities.

Kevn, you make broad accusations of scientific impropriety without offering the slightest evidence. Bearing false witness includes accusations without foundation.

Yes there is.

The first amendment says:



That is separation of church and state. It doesn't use the words "separation of church and state" but the concept is there. I could just as easily say the Bible doesn't forbid abortion because the word "abortion" isn't found in the Bible. Or how about "homosexuality"? The Bible can't forbid homosexual conduct because it doesn't use that term.

*giggles*

Just wait...

Which religion would Christianity be? Baptist? Luthren? Jehovah's Witnesse? Mormon? Catholic? ETC ETC?

Would you say the disciples were Christian or Jewish?

This is old, you are commenting on old stuff before reading the thread to see what has been said. I would redebate it. But you can read the whole thread before I attempt to discuss it further.

This is an example of "how to deceive while telling the truth." The age of the universe is currently hotly debated by cosmologists and other scientists. That is true. The deception here is that it is a debate about a very old versus a very young earth. It's not. The debate is that the earth is older than current theory says, not younger.




It's not a BELIEF. The scientist accepts or rejects the evidence supporting the theory of the creation of the earth. If he accepts the evidence and then finds evidence that contradicts the theory, it would cause him to reassess things. That is why theories change. If Kurgan and Kevn's accusations concerning scientists were true, then theories would never change. They do. All the time.

Want an example? Margarine is good, butter is bad because cholesterol is bad. Wait, no, margarine is bad because hydrogenated fats are bad, and not all cholesterol is bad. See, progress in action.

You can own a hamburger stand without belonging to a franchise.

Christians are people who follow the teachings of Christ.

Both. Christianity didn't separate from Judaism until many years later, spearheaded by Paul. As you know from reading Acts, not all the disciples were pleased with this.

Baptist, Roman Catholic, Lutheran, are NOT religions, they are denominations. They are all branches of the Christian Religion. Just as Orthodox and Reform are branches of Judaism, and Theravada and Mahayana are branches of Buddhism.

So, Catholics and Baptists and Lutherans and Russian Orthodox are all Christians.

The disciples were clearly Jewish before the death of Jesus. After his death is a question I can't really answer. It wasn't until the ideas of the trinity and the divinity of Jesus that Christianity separated from Judaism, and those ideas seem to have come after the disciples lived.

Hoo-wee! Michael is takin' Kevn to school. It's like that cartoon where the dog shoves a firehose in a cat's mouth and water comes out its ears.

~Ulrika~

Islamic is the adjective used for things, not people. Islamic architecture, philosophy, culture for example. The adjective used for people is Muslim. A Muslim scientist. It's confusing because we use the same adjective for both when talking about Christianity. A good parallel would be Jewish and Judaic. There is Judaic culture, but the person would be a Jewish scientist.

This is followed by a long list of people. I googled three of them. The first is Don Bratten, the plant physiologist. The sites that reference him are all creationist sites. Here is an example of his fine intellect. http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/aig_strawmen_rw.htm

The second was Dr. John Baumgardner. Again, all the information comes from creationist sites. Here is a quote from Dr Baumgardner, "I would say my primary goal in my scientific career is a defense of God's Word, plain and simple." The link is http://www.rae.org/believe.html. Anyone else see the problem here?

The third was Dr. Ick-Dong Yoo. There are a lot of sites connected to him, but the only ones that say he's a creationist are ones that copied the same list that Kurgan did. Odd that Dr Yoo hasn't said that himself, huh?

Let's talk about what the Bible does say. Genesis, chapter 1, verse 20, clearly states that God created birds on the fifth day. Verse 26 It says that God created Man on the sixth day.

Now, let's go to Chapter 2. Verse 15 clearly says that God created Man and then created birds.

This is what is called an inconsistency. The first two chapters of Genesis contradict each other. Jump to Chapter 10, verse 5, it states that the descendants of Noah formed different nations, with their own languages. But Chapter 11, verse 1, states that all humans spoke the same language.

What can we conclude from this? That the Bible is not the direct, infallible, word of God, unless of course, God was contradicting himself. Simple, huh?

I noticed you didn't say Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons are Christian, are they denominations?

Catholics have a pope that separates them from Christ, as the pope is the representative of Christ on Earth, does that mean they are like the original Christians? Catholic doctrine says only Catholics can go to heaven, does that sound like Catholics see Christianity as part of their religion?

Each "denomination" believes and acts differently than the others.

What does any of that have to do with how old the Earth is?

Jehovah's Witnesses are Christians. Mormons might be. Depends on how you draw the lines. The Pope does not separate Catholics from Christ. And Catholic doctrine does not say that only Catholics go to heaven. They say that only God decides who goes to heaven. Check out a copy of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, it can clear things up for you.

Islam believes in Jesus, Islam doesn't believe in Christ. Sounds contradictory I know. Islam believes Jesus was a prophet, it doesn't believe Jesus is the Christ, the Anointed One, or Messiah. That separates Islam from Christianity.

Catholics are not the "original" Christians, the Orthodox Churches are. That's what "orthodox" means. Roman Catholicism separated from the Orthodox Churchs, and then the Protestant and Anglican Churches split from the Catholics. The Protestants have split into many, many denominations, Presbyterian to Baptist to Jehovah's Witness to Non-Denominational to Dutch Calvinist and more. They're all Christian. Some of them believe that other denominations aren't the real mccoy, but they are all Christian. And, yes each denomination believes and acts differently than the others. Otherwise they'd be all the same denomination.

I think that any religious group that accepts the God of Israel as the one true God, accepts the Trinity, accepts (therefore) the divinity of Jesus, and accepts the Bible as holy Scripture would be considered Christian.

Since the Bible isn't the inerrant word of God, you really can't use it to determine the age of the earth. You would actually need to engage in scientific investigation to determine that. That's what it has to do with how old the Earth is.

Pope Innocent III: "There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside of which no one at all can be saved."

Pope Boniface VIII: "Urged by faith, we are obliged to believe and to maintain that the Church is one, holy, catholic, and also apostolic. We believe in her firmly and we confess with simplicity that outside of her there is neither salvation nor the remission of sins... Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff."

Pope Eugene IV: "It [the Church] firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart 'into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels' [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church."

Many "Christians" don't accept the trinity, and/or the divinity of Christ. Many "Christians" question the Bible as the inerrant Word of God. Knowing that, which "Christians" are really Christians?

I was arguing neither the age of the Earth nor the infallability of the Bible.

AWESOME! I've heard about the inconsistencies but I've never seen an example. Very fun.

~Ulrika~

Excellent. You really know your stuff.

~Ulrika~

Again, I would encourage you to refer to a Catechism of the Catholic Church. It covers what the Church teaches today. And, as I said above, it teaches that only God knows who will go to heaven and who won't. The Church has modified it's views on this subject over the centuries.

Some one who doesn't accept the trinity and the divinity of Jesus is not a Christian. Simple.

I never said you had to accept the Bible as the inerrant Word of God, I said to be considered a Christian you had to accept the Bible as Holy Scripture. Different things altogether. You could easily accept the Bible as inspired by God, but written for, and by, men. Many Christians do.

Try Google.