In the beginning of earth formation to make livable
What's a "god"? Science doesn't acknowledge such a phenomenon.
In the beginning of earth formation to make livable
The problem with Creationism being taught in public schools, is that it is based on religious doctrine. While it might seem for example, that the Catholic Church (and other Christian 'churches') is/are ‘open’ to accepting evolution for example, it still integrates religion into the equation, by injecting the religious dogma that God creates souls, and that humanity is somehow ‘’set apart,’’ and ‘’special,’’ due to this fact. The theory of evolution does NOT support those ideas whatsoever, so…you have two very different schools of thought, trying to blend, and it simply doesn’t work.
On the surface, it would seem that religion and science have found common ground, but when we take a closer look at creationism, it directly opposes science, and doesn’t support it. The same can be said of science not supporting creationism, as well.
It would seem that the Catholic Church is open minded, but it doesn’t accept the theory of evolution in its entirety, because to do so, would mean rejecting God’s role as Divine Creator, and ‘infusing’ man (at some point during the evolutionary process??) with a soul.
Science and religion shouldn't be integrated therefore, (at least in the public school arena) because it places an undue burden on an individual trying to decipher fact from fiction.
For those who already firming believe in Creationism the answer is probably education by a more enlightened religious person that they respect. Most Christians do seem to be able to handle evolution. It's just a few fundamental groups who can't accept it.
For younger people secular education is the way to go I'm sure (as with everything else). The younger generation is less bigoted, less racist, etc.
Arauca mentioned something to the effect that we don't even know what the atmosphere was like in the early Earth. We do know that life wasn't possible. We know what the atmosphere was life during many time periods.
That alone (if they believed the science of course) would disprove the Creationism theory as life wasn't even possible immediately after the Earth was formed.
We have grown in a is a believing society , which means attachment to a deity. Many time as we transgress the law we become rebellious and so instead correct our ways before God , we rationalize that there is no god , and to reenforce our direction of thinking , we look into the misery in the world and ask how can there be a god to allow such misery.
All this means is you can't conceive of anything beyond your own 'belief system' and subsequently show NO respect for the belief system of folks who don't conform to your world view. Standard for intellectually dishonest ideologues as you've shown yourself to be. Idiot wind piety.
I think they can coexist actually - and so too do many hundreds of thousands of Christians who are scientifically trained. I think most people who understand both religion and science recognise some version of the "non-overlapping magisteria" view of Stephen Jay Gould, controversial though this may admittedly be in some circles.
I take your point about infusing a soul into Man, but I suspect most people think of that as a progressive thing too, rather than a yes/no distinction between creatures with a soul and those without. Teilhard de Chardin got there over half a century ago, though it's true the Vatican found his views a bit too hot to handle at the time.
I think too that strictly speaking the Catholic Church still insists on Adam and Eve being real individuals, which seems rather absurd, because for their own arcane theological reasons they seem to think there had to be a specific historical act of disobedience to cause the Fall. So clearly the doctrine of the Fall has a little way to go before it is fully harmonised with common sense - in my opinion, that is.
Can you tell me before the slat system was in place , was the earth covered with water ? was it dry ? was the atmosphere composition of nitroge , carbon dioxide was there Hydrogen . How did we get oxide material in the mantle, How come we have much hydrated oxide in the mantle how dit it get there ?
I know I am an old timer I graduated in the early 1970
Science and faith can only coexist if they both don't accept one another, entirely. To me, that diminishes the value of both.
I don't know what the "slat system" is. The early earth was volcanic, as it cooled water was retained, the oxygen come after a photosynthetic phase. Earth is made from the same material more or less as the sun is made from.
You are the scientist (not me). You should (and probably do) know the answers so why argue (if you are) for creation when you know the facts?
That is not exactly true since all new discovery in science, all new innovations and new theories requires faith by their creator, since these all start at the ground floor, before it has been proven. For example, the existence of dark matter and dark energy is inferred but nevertheless requires faith since it has never been seen in the lab.
Once an innovation gets past the idea, development and scale-up stage and then becomes printed in a textbook, the faithless can enjoy.
Innovation needs faith, while memorizing does not. I would be prefer to learn the charisma of faith so I can be creative and persistent.
Bordering on semantics, but ok. lol Yes, I see your point.
haha
Ok.
I can understand that, wellwisher. My view is not so much atheistic at this point, as it is agnostic. And not by default. I honestly don't know if there exists a god/gods or not. And I'm ok in not having to know. I'm not looking to get anyone to not believe in God, rather I'm just pointing out that science and faith can only coexist if they don't conflict with one another. (and they often do)
And again, science and faith can only coexist if they don't accept one another, entirely. We can't hold a steadfast belief in God, and then follow a school of thought that opposes that view. (to some extent of it) I mean, we can...but, we won't be true to ourselves by doing so.
That is not exactly true since all new discovery in science, all new innovations and new theories requires faith by their creator, since these all start at the ground floor, before it has been proven. For example, the existence of dark matter and dark energy is inferred but nevertheless requires faith since it has never been seen in the lab. Once an innovation gets past the idea, development and scale-up stage and then becomes printed in a textbook, the faithless can enjoy.
Innovation needs faith, while memorizing does not. I would be prefer to learn the charisma of faith so I can be creative and persistent. Einstein had faith in relativity decades before proof. The faithless beat him down because they want to memorize but it was too soon for the faithless to move in. If they had faith they could move in earlier.
Yes, sometimes science and religion do conflict; like a freeway with opposite running lanes that overlap. Like two paradigms that are colliding.
There is piety in me, I might be an idiot to you , but you are nice fellow to me . I don't have any intention to insult science because I mad my living in it and got a retirement , I believe in chemistry and biology , sent my son to medical school, I believe in physics Newtonian, At the present my other son and I work on nanothbes , does that make me dishonest ?
Education in the sciences is unrealistic for young children - some other way of "starting people off" will be the reality under that program.
I have used this example on other occasions.
We have all had dreams, which are a very common natural output of the brain. Within these dreams there are many details. Although dreams and dream details are a very common human experience and are observed all the time, we can't prove any of these dream details in a way that is consistent with the scientific method. This is real enough, due to billions of data points, yet these details lie beyond the range of the scientific method. You cannot directly observe dreams from the outside, nor can you reproduce the exact details in another lab. Science would conclude dream details are not subject to proof. There is no scientific proof, so they don't exist, right?
The scientific method was developed to separate the subjectivities and projections of the mind, from sensory based objectivity so only objective data would exist within science. This was very useful. In doing so, it eliminated a whole range of phenomena associated with the human mind and consciousness. Dreams details are on the other side of the divide.
When it comes to religious phenomena, these would be expected to be on the other side of the philosophical divide out of range of the philosophy of science. The objective scientist, in calibration, would say these things are conclusive, because the scientific method does not allow one to work, over the wall since the method breaks down.
I like science and was trained in applied science, but I also figured out this divide beyond which science can't go.. The faithless have a real tough time there, because science lacks the philosophical permissions. It is biased by the divide. I am not insulting science but only showing where science breaks down and needs an update for science to proceed over the divide. I like to hurdle back and forth and will use the customs practiced on each side of the divide. Sometimes I forget and reverse these.
Yes God is the source of everything. But what is God? What is this exploding and churning power that simultaneously creates and destroys? What is it? What is the source of consciousness? Is it just some chemicals in a petri dish? I really don't want to wrap my underwear around my ass really tight like Arfa Bran does; I don't want to put God in a box. The Christian version of God is easy for many people to understand, but is probably just a place-holder.I know you now, Mazulu...''God is the reason for everrrryyything,'' is your scientific ''approach''.