The Religion Discussion

[Habit7]

Ok Duane this is getting laborious. In Nazi Germany it was objectivity correct to kill innocent Jews until the nations that believed otherwise invaded them and cause them to change the laws that allowed that.

If you think my faith which is based of 6000 years of documented history is liken to a bearly 100 year old character popularised by Coca-Cola, then we operating on different wavelengths here.

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

objectivity?

only one wavelength is needed: logic

Again, I am not saying you are wrong. I am saying that your claim that your beliefs are objective and other's are subjective is not logical and in itself subjective.

sorry to labour you!

anyway, on another note, do you believe the earth is 6000 years old?

[Habit7]

Nah 6,000 is too young, however I am a young earth creationist.

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

Nah 6,000 is too young, however I am a young earth creationist.

so now old do you think the earth and universe is?

[Habit7]

so now old do you think the earth and universe is?

6,000-12,000 years

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

ah ok - well it was good chatting

[Habit7]

no prob, anytime!

[DFC]

Nah 6,000 is too young, however I am a young earth creationist.

so now old do you think the earth and universe is?

6,000-12,000 years

wow

[maj. tom]

Light travels at 300,000 km/second.
M31 Andromeda Galaxy, the closest galaxy to ours is 2 million light years away, meaning it takes 2 million years for light to arrive at earth from M31.
Speed of Light is a universal constant and is unchanged in all frames of reference.



The universe is 12,000 years old...

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

^ was just about to ask that but got caught up reading about the methods of parallax etc.

how do you explain that Habit7?

[Chimera]

The bible say so

that's how he explains it.

[Habit7]

Creationists believes that at the end of a 6 day creation week, God created an adult man (i.e. without childhood). It won't shock us the starlight and other lights in the galaxy were already set in motion before their origin point.

Though the topic is religion overlapping science and I believe I very capable in both, lets stick to the religion and leave the science for another thread.

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

^ So you're saying if we are to believe THAT level of omnipotence (world created in 6 days, man without childhood etc), it is easy to accept everything else? Interesting logic!

I think the science talk is very relevant here.
in fact I think Science is maj.tom's religion!

[marlener]

I doubt because science says that the universe and the earth at that is much much older so I don`t that Science is Maj tom religion because he does not have faith in it.

[megadoc1]

here we go again trying to introduce science into a religious discussion ..folks what religion seeks to address, science cannot! but if you wanna continue down that road.....do yuh thing
some accuse the religious folks of being "narrow minded" thing is they are the one stuck with the false dichotomy ,science or religion...somehow they think its impossible for both to exist in harmony,
the truth is, science deals with one aspect while religion seeks to address another ..its not wise to force science to speak where it cannot!

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

here we go again trying to introduce science into a religious discussion ..folks what religion seeks to address, science cannot! but if you wanna continue down that road.....do yuh thing
some accuse the religious folks of being "narrow minded" thing is they are the one stuck with the false dichotomy ,science or religion...somehow they think its impossible for both to exist in harmony,
the truth is, science deals with one aspect while religion seeks to address another ..its not wise to force science to speak where it cannot!

someone said the same of lightning and Zeus in Ancient Greece. Religious people back then thought each bolt of lightning came from the hand of Zeus and his staff. Temples were built for Zeus, God of Thunder and Lightning.

today we know the science behind lightning and what causes it.

[Habit7]

Cool story bro, next time you see Greek pagan you can point and laugh at him

The reason I won't mix science with religion in this thread because people use science as a blanket term when there is a difference. There is Empirical Science which is based on testable, repeatable, verifiable fact and is mostly exercised in Engineering, Chemistry, Physics, etc. And there is Historical Science which is deducing how empirical science happen in the past, this now is largely impacted by one's worldview as a naturalist would view historical science through naturalistic worldview while a Christian might view historical science through the lens of a biblical worldview. Hence my earlier point that we both have the evidence, its just how we subjectively see it.

However both would come to an infinite regress where they with have to deal with an eternal matter or an eternal being under a big sign that says WELCOME TO RELIGION. Now we start discuss who is right.

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

Science has been discussed heavily in this thread from inception and makes no sense stopping it now.

I think you mean theoretical - such as theoretical physics?
Science is science.

you seem to be in support of "Empirical Science" as you call it.
However religions do not utilize empirical science - which is why there is the requirement of faith.
Faith is not needed in "Empirical Science" since it is based on testable, repeatable, verifiable fact, as you pointed out.

There is no empirical evidence of Noah's Ark or of Atlantis - you'd need faith to believe in those.

[DFC]

"So, you think Adam and Eve were the first people on Earth, 6000 years ago and no-one has evolved since. Let me ask you, out of Adam and Eve, which one was black, which one was white and which one was asian?"

I saw this in another forum.

Care to explain Creationists?

[Habit7]

Well according to a creationist's understanding, while Adam and Eve were the first humans, we all also are direct descends of Noah + his wife, and his sons + their wives after a worldwide flood catastrophe, that wiped out all other human life.

In terms of the ethnicity question, it to me is mostly inconsequential and mostly promoted as means to classify us or divide us. We are all one race and what we see as ethnicity is very superficial and just phenotypes of people of similar genetic history.

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

Well according to a creationist's understanding, while Adam and Eve were the first humans, we all also are direct descends of Noah + his wife, and his sons + their wives after a worldwide flood catastrophe, that wiped out all other human life.

yes but Noah + his wife, and his sons + their wives also came from Adam and Eve, not so?

In terms of the ethnicity question, it to me is mostly inconsequential and mostly promoted as means to classify us or divide us. We are all one race and what we see as ethnicity is very superficial and just phenotypes of people of similar genetic history.

promoted by whom?

Ugliness is based on perception, ethnicity or race isn't. You cannot deny that someone is Asian or African or Indian, however you can deny that you are ugly.

While I agree that we all belong to one race, the human race, you cannot ignore the fact that people do not switch race e.g. a caucasian man and woman cannot have an indian child.

[Habit7]

Yeah Duane, I don't think I denied that

As I said earlier, I will allow someone else to fight that ethnicity battle. But I do believe naturalist believe we are all descendants of residents of the Fertile Crescent and our ethnic features are largely a result of our environment.

[Dizzy28]

Aborginal Australians who have been living in Australia for at least 50,000 years would not be pleased with talk of a 6,000 - 12,000 year old Earth.

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

Yeah Duane, I don't think I denied that

As I said earlier, I will allow someone else to fight that ethnicity battle. But I do believe naturalist believe we are all descendants of residents of the Fertile Crescent and our ethnic features are largely a result of our environment.

but that would suggest evolution. From your posts so far I am sure you don't support evolution as the answer for different races and ethnicity.

[Habit7]

Yeah Duane, I don't think I denied that

As I said earlier, I will allow someone else to fight that ethnicity battle. But I do believe naturalist believe we are all descendants of residents of the Fertile Crescent and our ethnic features are largely a result of our environment.

but that would suggest evolution. From your posts so far I am sure you don't support evolution as the answer for different races and ethnicity.

Empirical Science=^^^micro-evolution

Historical Science (naturalistic view)= since we currently observe micro-evolution, then it was happening over millions of years by the process of macro-evolution to produce variance of species.



I fully agree with micro-evolution, not macro.

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

^ People changing from one race to another is not micro evolution. If that only took a few thousand years then we'd be vastly different from people from 2000 years ago! We'd probably have shorter legs, or bigger heads since we do a considerable less walking and a whole lot more thinking today.

[megadoc1]

here we go again trying to introduce science into a religious discussion ..folks what religion seeks to address, science cannot! but if you wanna continue down that road.....do yuh thing
some accuse the religious folks of being "narrow minded" thing is they are the one stuck with the false dichotomy ,science or religion...somehow they think its impossible for both to exist in harmony,
the truth is, science deals with one aspect while religion seeks to address another ..its not wise to force science to speak where it cannot!

someone said the same of lightning and Zeus in Ancient Greece. Religious people back then thought each bolt of lightning came from the hand of Zeus and his staff. Temples were built for Zeus, God of Thunder and Lightning.

today we know the science behind lightning and what causes it.

Errr..... that's a response to...never mind! its ok to not get what I was saying but you made a great point there I must say ... however I still think you know exactly what I meant, If not,then you responded with something far away from the point I made

[achillies]

Science also requires faith, sometimes in the science, other times in the scientist.

Scientists claim the entire universe first started as "nothing" they then use quantum physics to attempt to explain how that nothing became something that then evolved over millions of years to what we see today

That theory has not been proven in full, but many believe it, that many also believe that it would be proven in the near future, which is another example of faith

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

Science does NOT require faith.

You CAN have faith in a hypothesis or in a scientist, but faith is not required for science.

I can have faith that my car will start in the morning, however it's up to the science behind the sealed, maintenance free battery. No amount of my faith in the battery will help if the battery is dead.

I can have faith that a scientist will find aliens on Mars, but no amount of faith in that scientist will make that a reality if there aren't any life forms there.

Aliens on Mars is not entirely impossible though.

[achillies]

Science does NOT require faith.

You CAN have faith in a hypothesis or in a scientist, but faith is not required for science.

I can have faith that my car will start in the morning, however it's up to the science behind the sealed, maintenance free battery. No amount of my faith in the battery will help if the battery is dead.

I can have faith that a scientist will find aliens on Mars, but no amount of faith in that scientist will make that a reality if there aren't any life forms there.

Aliens on Mars is not entirely impossible though.

I beg to differ since scientists, namely Charles Darwin have put forth unprovable theories about the origin of the universe, he believes it, and so do a lot of other people, that is faith in the scientist and in the yet to be proved science.

While your particular example fits in with your theory, it is much too narrow for the discussion at hand

My point being that we all exercise faith, even when we don't know we do, there are a great many things that we take for granted with regards to faith/science/religion.