Just that religion and science are fundamentally two different things. Religion is all about belief. For example:
It's all about belief. If you believe in Jesus, then the answers are clear. Religion has the answer.

Science on the other hand is all about questions. Science is always skeptical and always asks why. Nothing is ever permanent in science, everything is always open to question. Science is all about questioning and looking for reasons that what you believe is false.

They are just two fundamentally different points of view.

I do find it personally ironic that while science offers much more tangible to believe in -- for example the computers that we all are using come directly from the type of thinking that scientists use -- religion is more inspirational and engenders more belief.

I personally think that's because we all grow old and die. Science does not have a good answer for that, not one that makes us comfortable. The promises of the faith, on the other hand, are fundamentally positioned to comfort us as we face the limits of human life.

Mebe-
Very insightful. Also, given that my basic personality is to deny answers and keep asking questions, I can see why I'm stuck on this one.

BTW, when I saw your first post on this, I thought of the game show Jeopardy! They GIVE you the answers, and you SUPPLY the questions...

BTW, I'm watching the History channel right now about stories from Biblical times that "didn't make it" into the Bible. Very interesting. Apparently adolescent Jesus was quite the troublemaker! Not surprising, I suppose...you can't be an easy going fellow to put up with all that abuse (Son of God, or not!!)

FH, thanks for the advice about different versions of the Bible. What is up with "The New World Translation?" Too many liberties, perhaps to further some other agenda?

This is truly a great topic, and I do plan to get out my tattered copy of KJ version, just to remind myself of fave passages. I still have issues battling the whole evolution process, but will continue to ponder your input, FH.

Mebe - You're into existentialism and relativism here. It sounds good, but it denies reality. While what you are saying about "religion" in general might be true, it is not true of Christianity.

Think of it this way. Do you have faith that the sun will rise in the morning? Why? Does the sun really rise or does it just seem that way? Why couldn't the sun "rise" in the West instead of the East? When the sun is not "up" it is dark. When the sun is "up" it is light. Why? Maybe it just "seems" that way but in reality there is no sun, so all of the things we believe are "caused" by the sun are not really there, it's just relative to what we choose to believe. In short, we have faith that these things are so, but no real "proof."

I would suspect it wouldn't take a scientist, who believes in evolution or a scientist who believes in creation, long to run some scientific tests to prove that the sun really exists, even though we can't create a sun or touch the one "up there." The "evidence" supports the existence of the sun, the effects it has, and what we observe. By the same token, how do we know that Julius Caesar existed, or Homer, or Plato, or anyone from the historical past?

When it comes to Christianity, our faith is in the PERSON of Jesus Christ. Who he is, what he did, not some "made up" idea of man. It is REAL. HE can be examined in much the same way that the sun can be examined. IF the sun exists, then what is affected by the sun is real whether we like it or not. IF Jesus Christ IS the Son of God, the second person of the Trinity, is himself God as he claimed, then everything else that is affected by Him is real whether we like it or not.

You see, the difference is not WHAT we believe, it it WHO we believe. He existed in time and space. Records were kept and events recorded for "posterity." The reality of his existence on Earth some 2000 years ago is real and beyond question. What people question is whether or not he is who he said he is. That's the same as people questioning the reality of the sun. It doesn't matter what the questions are or what anyone believes, TRUTH and FACT are not altered, only our interpretation of the facts changes depending upon whether or not we accept or reject objectively or subjectively.



This simply is untrue. Science certainly uses questions, as does religion. But Science also determines "Laws" that are permanent and NOT subject to change. The 1st and 2nd laws of thermodymanics would be examples of that. Religion examines the claims of a given religion and questions the "permanence" of the central tenet(s) or object of that faith. In the case of Christianity, that "object" is a person, Jesus Christ and whether or not the prophecy's, claims, actions, etc. about him, and done by him, are real. If they are, then he is God, and God IS permanent and unchanging no matter what anyone thinks.




While Christianity may also be inspirational to many, it is based in the very tangible person of Jesus Christ. THAT is what separates Christianity from all other religions of the world. You don't get much more tangible than Jesus Christ.

imanotherone - Precisely. In the case of the NWT, it "adds" words that don't exist in order to deny the diety of Christ, among other things. There is no need at the present time to go into a discussion of "cults" that claim to be "Christian" but which deny the basic tenets of Christianity, such as the diety of Christ.

2long - This statement about "random chance" and "natural selection" is just plain false, stated as you did with the use of the word "do," implying that science has "proven" this. That is simply not the case. For you to assume that random chance and natural selection "favor" or "actually do" develop more complex forms of life is based solely in FAITH, not fact. I'll have to spend a little time getting you some references from scientists who believe in evolution, but who have the "honesty" to admit there is no real proof of this contention, so you'll have more than just my word to go on.




Really? "Atheism" means the denial of God, of the existence of God. Without God, there can BE no creation and that ONLY leaves evolution as the "answer" to how we, and eveything, "got here."



There is no "appearing" about this anymore than it would "appear" that an "intelligence" was deliberately behind the design of a building to function as it's supposed to and the taking of raw materials and using them fashion the needed construction materials, to say nothing of the actual construction process itself to make sure that the right parts are used in the precise order needed.

Furthermore, one of the "tenets" of Biology (as in "Law") is that "Life comes from life." It does NOT come from nonliving things. Yet according to evolution, life HAD to come from non-life AT LEAST once, denying the Biological law.




Okay, I would agree that Christ is the central issue. That is what I've have been consistently saying.

It simply is the case. What is it with you, FH? Is this some sort of EN with you?


It's based on evidence, not faith.


Take your time.


This is convluted logic, FH. Why not simply accept that there ARE religious people who accept the fact that life is evolving on this planet, and who have no inner 2rmoil between their religious beliefs and their science?


We've been over this before. Evolution describes changes over time. Origins deals with... ...ORIGINS.


And I have no problem with that.

-ol' 2long

There is no contradiction. Religion is not supposed to invent tools or generate hypotheses. It gives us spiritual treasures.

What if we somebody started a campaign to teach physics in sunday school classes? It would be laughed off. Sunday school has nothing to do with science. And vice versa.

Can somebody go back and analyze this thread and let me know who it was who is responsible for converting the theme from ignoring users to Christianity and evolution vs. creation? It just seems like this happens so often on so many threads and I am wondering who is responsible. Since I am ignoring everyone on this thread now, I can't tell myself.

piojitos:

Well, let me take credit (or blame) if it will help! <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

...of course, if I'm being ignored, someone else will have 2 get the message 2 you.

Cheers!

-ol' 2long

2long,

Yes you qualify on two counts. Even so, I will respond to this (I got it on email which has no filter - yet).

I have never finished any of your posts. That is because I find them 2 hard 2 read. That is a shame. I suspect you have some really good things 2 say but I simply have not enough patience 2 read your disjointed writing style. Maybe if I 2k 2 AD's 2gether before trying 2 read. Don't know. I truly do skip every one of your posts just because of the 2 substi2shun.

I hope some day you consider changing your name to toolong because I would really like to read some of your posts.

This post was not intended as a criticism of you. I would not have posted it if I had any bad intention. It is just that, if your writing style bothers me so much, I am wondering if other people are bothered by it too. Maybe there are more people you could be helping. Anyway, just a thought.

You know I love a good debate

but

This one...allows me to stand in no-mans-land

I can't prove, nor can I disprove

I do know...I have seen people reach for faith and flourish

I have also seen people loose their faith...and fall

I do know...10 commandments....well basically makes for 'good practice'


perhaps a 'story' written long ago served it's purpose then for a simple world...trouble is the world is just not so simple any more.


Max

Where does it say this ANYWHERE on this site or on this board. This makes my blood boil. The name of this site is Marriage Builders and it also says "building marriages to last a lifetime". Where does that specify in any way whatsoever that only BSs can Marriage Build.

I came here because the Harleys address both sides of infidelity and always have done. Reading the material on the site makes this perfectly obvious.

Pio, you've entered a long, long standing debate and this isn't the ignoring thread but you probably knew that.

I notice Kinger has run for the hills and probably won't be back.

Kinger,

U had a few questions and glad to see u r a thinking man. Not that u asked but here's another POV.


Orchid: That question, even if genuine belongs on the TOW board. There you will find the very twisted and illogical excuses they conjure up. If u r guillable enough to believe it then u w/b accepted into their fold.

If you want the real answer you will find the basic need for their selfish craving is greed. Will cover more on that later.


Orchid: Yes there are many posts by those who have lived through it and living through it. It is an experience that should happen to anyone but when it does, it c/b a learning experience or a devasting one.


Orchid: Very hard to explain this kind of thing even to the most understanding of people. In fact if you ask, many BS' here are shocked at their 'tolerance' of the A. What I have come to realize is that it is because of the shock that the BS is duped into 'enabling the A'. With the OP's help, the WS learn to put their needs (as a WS) ahead of all that is good and right in the world. The BS is often caught unawares and while in shock, the BS and family stumble in the dark not knowing there is a sinister plot being hatched to knock them off their family pedestal.

I tend to describe it as the mind and heart NOT being in sync. Until it does get in sync, the BS will try to 'fix' their spouse not realizing they can't fix their spouse because the current character inhabiting their 'spouses' body is now the WS. To befriend a WS is not healty. So the BS takes a beating and in a few cases pays for it with their lives. In many cases the financial hurt is a deal breaker. So the BS' who use $$ as part of their recovery tool find it is helpful. U can't agrue with a negative balance and since greed is such an intrical (sp???) part of the A, the WS tends to spend a lot of what they don't have and the OP tends to want the family resources for their own selfish use.

Now here's what DOESN'T cause an A:

1. Gender
2. Race
3. Religion
4. Work
5. Bad childhood
6. Good childhood
7. good health/bad health
8. Financial difficulties
9. No financial difficulties
10. Looks (good or bad)
11. Education
12. Lack of education (as in schooling/degrees, etc)
13. drugs
14. alcohol
15. smoking
16. children/no children
17. pets/no pets
18. Own a home/rent/homeless
19. Depression
20. Mental illness
...... the list is endless

What contributes to the A:

1. Being a conflict avoider (this one can go both ways)
2. Being greedy
3. Lack of common sense
4. Being stupid
5. Losing one's morals.
There's probably more but it is late at night and I am getting tired. LOL!!! <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/pfft.gif" alt="" />

It appears you like to read. Try reading His Needs/Her Needs. If you like, read Surviving an Affair. The 1st book at the very least may help you see how to better communicate with the female gender and make you a better person. At the most....well the sky's the limit.

If u r sincere, u will definitely learn here. If not, your time here w/b short. Why? Because we are quite a boring group to those who like to babble.... oh yea.... not very tolerable to those who are NOT logical. Logic is for the sane not the crazed (like the WS and OPs from the mothership). LOL!!! <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/eek.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Well I probably got more to post but it is very late.

Hope this helps. If not, it's just my POV anyhow. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

L.

kinger,

I hope you come back. Or if the Scopes trial here is too much for you (it is for me), start a new thread. I think this one will be down shortly for carbon dating anyway.

And yes I do realize now that I referenced the wrong thread earlier. I haven't been on MB for a few days and I had 150 emails download when I got in ths AM and I got cross-threaded.

Pio-
You are so FUNNY! I went back and looked, way back on page 2 and 3 and YOU and KINGER are the ones who brought Christianity into the argument.

I don't think that turns it into a Scopes trial. People's faith, or lack of it, obviously has a significant impact on whether their marriage will succeed under stress. Therefore, whether you are Buddhist, Muslim, Jewish, Christian or any faith, that faith will have an impact on how they deal with infidelity.

BTW, since I'm the one who started the Ignore User thread, I hereby give you permission to link to it here. Oh, but you probably aren't reading from me anymore, since I jumped into the Scopes fray.

Then how do you explain the change from Newtonian physics to relativity? 1900, people knew how things moved. Newton had described it. 2000, people know how thing move, Einstein described it. 2100? String theory? Something else? Maybe still Einstein.

Science is always ready to throw out its answer in the face of a new testable theory that has greater explanatory power.

Science has only questions and a set of "best answers of the moment."
I am glad that Jesus is so tangible for you. Unfortunately I find other things more tangible than Jesus. Not to make light of it, but my keyboard is much more tangible than Jesus for me. I've physically touched it a lot more than I've physically touched Jesus.

Oh come on, 2long. This sort appeal to emotions is beneath you. I "could" just as easily ask the same question of you, WAT, or any proponent of Evolution. It is a GIVEN that you and I disagree on the issue of ORIGINS, the ORIGIN of LIFE and the various and diverse forms of life. The POINT is that there ARE ONLY two MODELS of how everything, inaninmate and animate, got here.

You would, apparently, like me to "cede" one of the two possibilities, thereby making Evolution the "only" choice. That, of course, is just what is done in public schools where they are so paranoid about their "Emotional Need" to "protect" people from the possible "harmful" effects of merely mentioning that God might exist and have created everything by HIS will, that they have forbidden "free speech" and "free exercise of religion" and tout a Model and it's attendant theories as "proven fact," when you know, or should know, that it is is NOT "proven" scientifically unless a presupposition FOR and a bias FOR the Evolutionary MODEL is FIRST applied PRIOR to examining the data.

But despite the continual appeals to "science" to provide answers to the questions, there are no "answers," just more speculation and "revisions" to try to come up with new explanations for what is actually observed. That sort of thing doesn't happen with Creation, as Creationism predicts what is actually seen and found in nature.




I disagree, obviously. What you call "evidence," I call interpretation of facts based in a presupposition that evolution is true. That's circular logic and "proves" nothing. It bends facts to fit a preconception and even ignores contradictory facts.




Okay. Thanks for your patience. I will see that I do, because I know of your "penchant" for "published in peer reviewed" sources, even though those very sources automatically reject anything that does NOT support an evolutionary bias.




There is nothing "convoluted" about it. There ARE people who consider themselves Christians who still try to "accommodate" evolution instead of creation, or worse yet, who try to accommodate both (as in "God provided the "kick start" of creation and then simple left everything to random chance to see if anything might develop on it's own).

No, Evolution is only about 200 years old. It is founded in those who, whether they thought they were Christians or not, decided that God was wrong and they were right, and then attempted to fit observable FACTS to their "notion" of things "not needing God" to develop.

I could go into a plethora of "scientific theories" that were touted as FACT, that have since been proven false and discard, only to be replaced with a new theory to explain things simply to avoid the possibility that "God created" IS the true answer. But that can wait for another time.

Now let me "turn it around on your, if I may.

"Why not simply accept that there ARE Scientists who accept the fact that life is notevolving on this planet, and who have no inner 2rmoil between their science and their religious beliefs? They are every bit "as good a Scientist" as one who believes in evolution, whether an atheist or not."




Come on, 2long. You KNOW that this begs the question. Evolutionary theory attempts to EXPLAIN the diversity of life (since you are narrowing it down to pertain to only changes [or differences between] in living things) that is actually seen both in living organisms and evidence in now extinct organisms such as trilobites and brontosaurus or other things in the "fossil record."

Regardless, you "beg the question" that in order for ANY "evolution" to occur, if one assumes that it even does, there MUST have been AT LEAST one time when the "change" went from NONliving to LIVING, self replecating, organisms. There HAD to have been not only a precise change in structure of component parts, but also in the INFORMATION that is coded to produce the "blueprint" of life.

piojitos - you might want to be careful about bring the Scopes trial into the discussion because the "science" used in the Scopes trial has since been thoroughly debunked by further scientific inquiry and discoveries. In effect, had the current information been available, the "evidence" used in the Scopes trial would never have been used, or would have been discredited.

By the way, I suggested earlier that the evolution/creation discussion be moved to it's own thread. I was overruled.

FWIW.

2long, WAT, et. al, - for your reading pleasure while I find time to type the "references" I promised to 2long.

Did Man and Dinosaurs Coexist? Hmm...housand Words even in the face of Denial



Man and Flying Dinosaurs in North and South America