Religion or Science - How do they compare?

Faith writes:The point is that there isn't just the one method of arriving at true knowledge of the world. There is empirical science and there is the revelation of God, and it matters not whether some people don't believe in God for the statement I made to be true.

Faith writes:Millions of Christians and at least thousands of Bible experts say it's God's revelation.

We all agree and it doesn't matter that others don't. 0I'm not offering it to you to believe it, I'm just stating that the true God is a source of knowledge.

Phat writes:My conclusion is that if what you believe is true, reality is not as it appears.

Faith writes:I've answered the forensics claim many times. It only works for the historical or witnessed past,

where you actually have information from that past but for the prehistoric past all you have is today's observations, a few ways to compare things in the present that may apply to that distant past, but no way to verify anything from that actual past.

If in fact it's only the result of the Flood which killed all the dead things contained in the rocks you misinterpret as representing time periods, there is no way to prove it one way or the other.

There is no way to prove that evolution occurred from one species to another because the only thing you can actually observe is variation within a Kind, it is merely assumed.

GDR writes:If however there is built into creation a moral code that distinguishes right from wrong, or more specifically good from evil then we should ask the question of where does that come from. Materialists take the point of view as I understand that our moral code has evolved based on what works best for us and individuals and society.

If there is no moral code that would exist apart from our existence the I question the idea that we would have adapted a moral code that gives us the notion of sacrificing our own well being for people of different gene pools, different nationalities and even with different moral codes. Why do millions of us send our personal resources of time and money to those less fortunate in other parts of the world when our own gene pool or society would be better off if they would die away and give us full access to their resources?

OK, but we have also seen humans come up with a moral code that tells them to kill those who don't agree with them, or of another culture. If there is a universal moral code we are obviously free to ignore it whatever it might be.