Precisely.
The Big Bang is simply the way God did it.
There is nothing involving fossils, dinosaurs, geologic time, "little" i.e observable evolution, physics, biology, or anything else in PROVABLE science that contradicts Biblical teachings
Precisely.
The Big Bang is simply the way God did it.
There is nothing involving fossils, dinosaurs, geologic time, "little" i.e observable evolution, physics, biology, or anything else in PROVABLE science that contradicts Biblical teachings
What could be more GOOD and NORMAL and AMERICAN than Packer Football?
Texas, although my facts may not be thorough to the extreme, it was definetely the banner of Islam that united the Arab tribes in such a way that they could get to the great library. Furthermore, prior to the unification of the Arabs in Islam, many, possibly even most Arabs were Illiterate, relying almost oral record keeping. Modern Mathematics found its way in the world with a heavy hand from Islamic scholars.
Also, remember Darwin himself was a devout chrisitian untill his death. In fact, there are many religious figures at the forefront of scientific discovery.
I do agree that christian opposition to stem cell research is completely illogical. However, as a scientific 'fact' the big bang theory is just that, a flawed theory.
I stand by my original point, mathematics= mankinds greatest scientific tool. In your list Tyrone, which of those can follow the sceintific theory without the use of math?
I agree with this.....physics a close second.Originally Posted by crosbiegrad
After lunch the players lounged about the hotel patio watching the surf fling white plumes high against the darkening sky. Clouds were piling up in the west… Vince Lombardi frowned.
cbg, Alexander's empire was divided shortly after his death, and virtually non-existence in the sense of Greek dominance not long after that, the Egypt portion in the hands of Arabs--more than two centuries before Islam came along in the early 600s. Less than two decades after that, the great repository of Greek knowledge in Alexandria was reduced to rubble.
I did NOT state or imply that I had any problem with the Big Bang Theory. In fact, I praised Howard's post pointing out that the BB Theory was consistent with true Christian teachings. A lot of theoretical science IS flawed, but some are not. There seems to be observable evidence of the BB Theory--red shift, etc.
What could be more GOOD and NORMAL and AMERICAN than Packer Football?
Hate to turn this into some kind of argument but the great strides in mathematics taken during the Abbassid dynasty were not only due to greek translation but information obtained from India. At any rate, I think It's unfair to say that religion is the enemy of scienctific progress. Sure, 'religious' men and women have sought to stifle some scientific progress but there are many scientists who have stifled religious progress, consider Tesla and Edison.
From Wikipedia:
"Amr ibn al 'Aas conquest in 642
Several historians told varying accounts of an Arab army led by Amr ibn al 'Aas sacking the city in 642 after the Byzantine army was defeated at the Battle of Heliopolis, and that the commander asked the caliph Umar what to do with the library. He gave the famous answer: "They will either contradict the Koran, in which case they are heresy, or they will agree with it, so they are superfluous." It is said that the Arabs subsequently burned the books to heat bathwater for the soldiers. It was also said that the Library's collection was still substantial enough at this late date to provide six months' worth of fuel for the baths.
However, this account has been dismissed by some as a legend.
While the first Western account of the supposed event was in Edward Pococke's 1663 translation of History of the Dynasties, it was dismissed as a hoax or propaganda as early as 1713 by Fr. Eusèbe Renaudot. Over the centuries, numerous succeeding scholars have agreed with Fr. Renaudot's conclusion, including Alfred J. Butler, Victor Chauvin, Paul Casanova and Eugenio Griffini. More recently, in 1990, Middle East scholar Bernard Lewis argued that the original account is not true, but that it survived over time because it was a useful myth for the great twelfth century Muslim leader Saladin, who found it necessary to break up the Fatimid caliphate's collection of heretical Isma'ili texts in Cairo following his restoration of Sunnism to Egypt. Lewis proposes that the story of the caliph Umar's support of a library's destruction may have made Saladin's actions seem more acceptable to his people.
Recent underwater excavations in the harbor of modern Alexandria have also lent credence to the idea that several catastrophic earthquakes between the third and fifth centuries AD may have played a role in the decline and/or destruction of the library (as well as the city itself)."
Frankly, the literacy levels in todays Muslim world are pretty low. Ignorance is bliss.
http://islamoscope.wordpress.com/200...-backwardness/
Tarlam, I read that exact Wikipedia entry--the reason I said, "It was reported ....." instead of "The general definitely stated .......".
Crosbie, I hate to fall back on somebody else's argument that math isn't exactly science, but there is a clear differentiation here. Yes, Hindu scholars--from India--did also contribute to the basics of modern math along with Arabs translating from the Greek--generally in the pre-Muslim time period. However, the foundations of science back then did NOT require much of any math. More recent science, of course, uses a lot of applied mathematics--but that's a whole other level and a whole other area of discussion than the development of Arabic numbers, algebra, geometry, etc.
I thought from the tone of your original post that YOU were the one who was a detractor of religion for stifling scientific advances. The thread title certainly seems to say so--depending on how you interpret the question mark. Yes, Darwin, Tesla, Edison, and others were reputed to be religious. In those days, anybody who wasn't was ostracized and demonized--as opposed to now, when those who ARE religious get that treatment. It's difficult to know what their beliefs really were.
In any case, I'm not talking about true Biblical teachings when I acknowledge that Christian and other religious organizations stifled science. Rather, I'm talking about the bureaucracy of those religions and the human additions and editions to those religions that science was in conflict with, NOT real Biblical teachings--which is sort of the same thing as you said at the end of your post.
What could be more GOOD and NORMAL and AMERICAN than Packer Football?
My answers reflect the quality of the original questions.
I must have missed that day. Evolution doesn't make claims about the origins of the universe; it talks about the origin and evolution of species. Why shouldn't it be taught? Do you want to do away with physics and astronomy too because they were once seen as making controversial claims about the movement of celestial objects?
Your inability to see the difference between fetuses and the elderly makes it perfectly clear why you take the positions you do. But don't expect me to follow you in your refusal to see the difference.
I'm struggling to follow your logic and your syntax, Howie. I assume your point is that correlation doesn't prove causality, but I'm making a bit of an interpretive leap here. Could you please be a little more specific and less cryptic with your statements and questions?
Sorry, I can see how my title was misleading, I am a practising christian and a geology major, a soft science but a science all the same. I do not feel like my beliefs are in any way detrimental to my learning. I hate to sound like a cry baby but it just bugs me how often religion in general comes under attack in a college setting.
In my experience it's not religion that comes under attack, it's specifically the efforts that are made--in the name of religion--to eliminate or severly restrict the teaching of science. No reasonable person has a problem with practicing religion, it's when religion is used to drive science out of the schools or to distort the teaching of science (for example, mandating that evolution and intelligent design be taught as "competing theories" in HS biology classes) that pro-science people start to attack.
See, now, this is gonna sound really provocative, and it has nothing to do with the topic, so please forgive me.
BUUUUUUT: As a non practising (as in church going) believer in a positive superior being I happen to call God, I am always dumbfounded when a football player thanks the Lord during interviews or after a great play, TD so demonstratively.
What if said player was a practicing Muslim and prayed to the East for a few seconds after a TD? It would be a 15 yard unsportsmanlike for starters, but the public outcry?
What if said player was a practising devil worshipper and thanked Lucifer or pointed downwards and crossed himself "upside down"?
No, I am NOT a devil worshipper. And no, I don't mean to hijack the thread, but it just occured to me.....
The NFL decided that dropping to your knee to praise God in celebration is still acceptable. They weren't specific as to which God, so I'd assume that a Muslim player dropping to his knees for just a moments prayer would be allowed within NFL rules. The public outcry, on the other hand, would still exist I'm sure. Though I couldn't venture a guess on how grand of scale that outcry would be. The outrage would be greater in some parts of the country than others, so it would depend on which city it happened in.
Chuck Norris doesn't cut his grass, he just stares at it and dares it to grow
What, now you channel Ben Bernanke(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NMFFAL56sEc)? It was not a poorly posed question; I was merely asking you to back up your posit.My answers reflect the quality of the original questions.
I must have missed that day. Evolution doesn't make claims about the origins of the universe; it talks about the origin and evolution of species. Why shouldn't it be taught? Do you want to do away with physics and astronomy too because they were once seen as making controversial claims about the movement of celestial objects?
Your inability to see the difference between fetuses and the elderly makes it perfectly clear why you take the positions you do. But don't expect me to follow you in your refusal to see the difference.
I'm struggling to follow your logic and your syntax, Howie. I assume your point is that correlation doesn't prove causality, but I'm making a bit of an interpretive leap here. Could you please be a little more specific and less cryptic with your statements and questions?
Evolution does not prove the origin of species either. As I mentioned before, this is not terra incognita. We can disagree.
I am not looking at your #2 in a parochial manner; I am looking at the bigger picture. There are more sides to an issue when it comes to this kind of science. Stem cell research was not illegal before Obama’s thoughtful one-sided proclamation on the subject.
Data shows that with Sex Education comes more societal issues derived from sex. Once again, your original pugnacious posit was wrong.
After lunch the players lounged about the hotel patio watching the surf fling white plumes high against the darkening sky. Clouds were piling up in the west… Vince Lombardi frowned.
It does according to Kepler.Does the Earth have a soul?If the earth dies before accepting jesus will it's soul go to hell?
Oh, those wacky Lutherans.
Which of those can stand without the alphabet. The alphabet, mankinds greatest scientific tool.
It offers a theory about the origination of species, one that can be tested and evaluated against other theories. That's the difference between evolution and any theological account of biological diversity--they can't be tested or disproven. So while evolution may not be "proven"--it is always subject to testing, revision, debate, etc.--it is currently the indisputably superior account of the origin of the species.
That cigarettes cause cancer isn't "proven" either, but it's a pretty safe bet.
I used this as an example of religious driven attempts to change how science is done and funded. That this attempt wasn't successful doesn't change the fact that it happened.
What data are you talking about, and how does it go about "showing" a causal connection--and not just an association--between sex ed and change in social behavior?
HOFer
How can you positively associate an increase in sexual issues to sex education without taking into account the concurrent increase of sex in the media that one would argue creates the need for the sex education? It's not like James Bond ever heard the phrase "no glove, no love..."
"Greatness is not an act... but a habit.Greatness is not an act... but a habit." -Greg Jennings
They didn't offer geology at Liberty U?
For some reason, I thought you were a liberal or secular progressive or some other variety of wrongheaded specimen. Glad to hear otherwise.
I had a minor in Geology--along with a Finance major forty years ago at U.W. Are you familiar with Professor Velakovsky and his theory of Catastrophism? He actually spoke at U.W. when I was there, and the whole Geology Department--full professors and all--shamefully heckled him. Back in those days, Huttonian Uniformitarianism--the geologic equivalent of the Theory of Evolution--was taught as gospel. Plate tectonics was dismissed as too common sensical or something. That has all turned around now, and Velakovsky and other early detractors of Uniformitarianism have been vindicated.
How do you justify the first chapter of Genesis with Geologic Time and the fossil record?
What could be more GOOD and NORMAL and AMERICAN than Packer Football?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote