Summations Only

If science and religion are ever going to have any harmony they should see the points of each others' argument with a grain honesty. Both are religious by any definition since they both possess traits of fundamentalism, blindly adhering to whatever their respective camps' dogma is touting.To a evolutionist, saying that the earth is only 5000-6000 years old is ridiculous to those with this seemingly scientific mindset. They will NEVER accept a "new earth theory" or ex nihilo creationism, which defies laws of thermodynamics.Conversely, to say all that we are, and life in general came from a random, matter of chance, therefore our existence and lives means nothing, and we go nowhere after this mortal existence is equally preposterous. Creationists will NEVER accept this either.But I am definitely on the creationists' side of the fence when it come to this debate. However, I would like to ask the Bible believing creationists to please reread the 1st chapter of Genesis carefully. Please tell me when/where does God ever say "let there be water?" Where does it say "let there be land?"He doesn't. The water was already there according to the Genesis account. Maybe it was there for eons upon eons. He divided the water and dry land appeared. He called it earth. Also, if Christians would explore their Judaic roots a bit further, they would see that there is a long held tradition that God created and destroyed the earth numerous times before He placed Adam and Eve here. To say that God is an Eternal Being, but to say simultaneously that He never did any creative works until a mere 5000-6000 years ago is preposterous. Christians will always be ridiculed by the scientific community until they quit limiting an Eternal God's creative genius to a few thousand year time frame.The earth can indeed be billions of years old, but that doesn't mean that God didn't create it long before He put Adam and Eve here. The earth being very old doesn't mean that Adam and Eve didn't exist or the Bible is false. The contradictions are caused by misinterpretations. What is a few billion years in an eternal perspective? Not a whole heck of a lot. Besides, isn't a day for God equal a 1000 years according to our time? Expand your mind creationists. Stuff happened before Genesis. And because it happened, doesnt mean Genesis isn't true.Edited by bridgebuilder, : No reason given.Edited by bridgebuilder, : typos

Yes, please teach me. Show me in a rigorous scientific method how you can spontaneously create life with some kind of biological compatible matter, and how the environment to sustain this viable biological matter came into existence from some unexplainable cosmic explosion, and tell me why this explosion occurred? You must know the secret of the god particle. Please tell me how it came to being too, since you don't think any higher beings exist to cause life. Is there a mathematical equation you have, or experiments that show that this phenomenon is repeatable? If not, you have contradicted yourself along the same standards your scientific theory religion rests upon

You cant answer the questions without contradicting your dogma. Neither can a creationist. They both want ALL the answers right NOW, and turn their theories/interpretations into facts. Some things remain unknown, beyond our scope of understanding. However, Creationists will be more accepting of this than the science community because they believe that some things are unfathomable mysteries of God, while scientists will reject anything that contradicts the popular, anti-spiritual theory of the day. Both are small-minded approachesand get it the way of truth.

I attacked the creationists also even though I personally lean toward a Higher Being as they do, an Intelligence that caused life as we know it. But they should not reject science either. Science shouldn't out right reject everything spiritual. Quantum physics could do a lot for religion, as well as super-string theory, etc,. and the like. Perhaps religion/spirituality doesn't have as much to offer science as science has to offer the spiritual side. Perhaps it does. both sides seem closed minded in my view. Most truths lie in the middle of radically opposite theories.

Don't tell me to start from a "realistic" approach when you didn't read my post. I am not a proponent of a new/young earth. I believe the earth is very old

"We don't know exactly how life came into existence.
...
I don't think anyone knows how it came to be."I agree. It is a matter of faith. Faith in science or faith in religion. I happen to believe that God is the ultimate scientist and both sides have validity. Both side have falsehoods. I am aware that this view will not make allies either side. That is fine. Peace out, I learn even when I'm insulted. http://209.160.41.193/Images/Moods/mood10.gifon

At least you science-minded folks reply and give thought provoking responses. So far not one creationist has responded to my initial post. That is the audience I was seeking when I made my initial post. I disagree with the creos who think God didn't create anything until 5000-6000 yrs ago. I don't disagree with their belief that God is the master-mind of creation.There will be no genuine agreement between me and the evolutionists unless I totally give up any belief in a Higher Being; or they consider the possibility that a Higher Being may have orchestrated the creation of the universe. Neither will happen. But at least the latter side engaged in the debate. The silence from the creos is deafening.Thanks to everyone who responded. I enjoyed reading your thoughts and seeing your points of view.

>>>I hope this isn't adios.Anyway, by sheer bad luck you chose to begin with a thread in the Free For All forum, and as one might guess by the name, it is unmoderated. People tend to fire away with both barrels in this forum.Your first post in this thread would make a good thread proposal. If you post it in the Proposed New Topics forum I'll promote it to one of the moderated forums at my first opportunity.<<<Hello Percy,I will be back in a few days but I must prepare for a somewhat long road trip in the AM. I knew that the "Free for All" forum would be rough territory, but it is OK, I like the unfettered expression of opinions. Perhaps it would have been more appropriate for me to have chosen another forum for this particular topic. You have my permission to repost my original post to another forum if you wish to do so, and thanks

Thanks for the invitation. Will do

You are right. It was narrow-minded of me to lump evolutionism within the same category as atheism. I should not have used it as an umbrella term.

>>>"I'm an "evolutionist" in the sense that I have accepted the Theory of Evolution. I am not stupid enough to think that poor little me, with no education in Biology, knows enough to tell that all those hundreds of thousands of biologists are all wrong. The same with calling me an "atomist" because I accepted the Atom Theory. I am not stupid enough to think that poor little me, with very, very little education in Physics, knows enough to tell that all those hundreds of thousands of Physicists are all wrong."<<<I do not disagree with all the principles of biology and physics either. At the same time, I do not accept everything Darwin said as the 'gospel'. Nor do I reject all of his tenets.>>>"No, saying the earth is 5000-6000 years old is ridiculous because ALL the scientific evidence we have indicate that the earth is way older than that."<<<Agreed.>>>"Untrue. I would accept a "new earth theory (whatever that is)", if all the evidence we have indicate a "new earth (whatever that is)".<<<My understanding of the 'new earth theory' is that it is a concept that some fundamental Christians adhere to. Which means the earth was 'created' during the chronology of the Genesis account, therefore, it cannot be older than 5000-6000 years old. My op was addressed to those who accept this as the only possibility and reject any scientific evidence that shows otherwise.>>>"I didn't have the laws of thermodynamics in mind when I accepted that the earth is much, much more than 5000-6000 years old. I used all the available physical evidence to get to an educated conclusion about the age of the earth."<<<I had the fundamentalists' idea of ex nihilo creation in mind when I made that statement. I do not believe that something can be created out of nothing, but I should have articulated my thoughts better.>>>"Let me give you a little advice: making false statements about what other people (who you don't even know) will or won't do doesn't make you a bridgebuilder. I can think of more unpleasant , but very accurate terms in describing people who attempt that."<<<It was not my intention to make false statements about anyone, known or unknown to me. I am making a personal bridge for me to cross, and whether others follow, well, that is their prerogative. However, that was good, sound advice. Making false statements, the usage of ad hominids, straw-man arguments, red herrings, or etc., etc., will not advance the truth no matter which side of the fence we are on.

>>>"I'll say that you got this right, The Genesis 1 creation account starts with the Primordial Ocean of Middle Eastern Creation myths. A view completely at odds with the reality shown to us by science.And this is why anyone hoping to build a bridge between science and religion must recognise that religion includes myths, and myths cannot be taken as accurate accounts of what happened."<<<Please explain why science does not believe in a Primordial Ocean when life first began on planet Earth? I thought water and the basic biological matter that would likely occur in an such an ocean was necessary to begin and sustain life, whether one believes in the creationism version of the origins of life, or that life resulted from a random, chance consequence of the big bang. I may not get back to you today, but I will respond when I'm able to do so.Yes, I agree that some religions include myths, but some also contain many truths (some more than others). Science has its truths and falsehoods also. It changes continually with new discoveries, and previously regarded facts become 'myths' and are rightfully discarded, albeit, at times, with much kicking and screaming if the new discoveries disagree with well established think tanks. That is why some brilliant scientists are ridiculed throughout their lives, cannot get their works published, etc., and are not vindicated until after their death. Therefore, there are many factions in the scientific community, not unlike the religious one, battling over their differing tenets, even now. I will admit that at least they are striving to learn more and more while on the other hand, there are many (NOT ALL) on the religious side of the proverbial fence that are somewhat to outright lackadaisical in their attitude about contemplating scientific discoveries. I don't believe the truth or the true 'theory of everything' will ever be discovered until science and spirituality reconcile their differences.Edited by bridgebuilder, : typos

Thank you for the posting tips I will try to comply with them. It does make responses more coherent when the quotes are formatted properly

Thank you for pointing out the difference between the "Primordial Ocean" and the "primordial ocean." I was unaware of this. Genesis does not include the term primordial ocean, whether beginning with upper or lower cases, yet it does present the concept that a body of water is necessary to precede life. Therefore, I disagree with your last statement, but it is a matter of interpretation (IMO). I think it is a common occurrence. Most new breakthroughs or new truths are faced with much opposition before becoming something that is accepted as self evident. In the past few centuries, religion was the main source of this opposition, and as a result, made the science and religion communities rivals. Now some scientists face opposition among the science community, or the 'authorities' rather, if a new concept disproves their currently believed 'facts'. At least these authorities do not burn the opposing scientists at the stake or behead them over their opposing views like the Inquisitors would have gladly done However, both approaches are capable of blocking knowledge from coming to light, though one is guilty of employing much more brutal methods.As far as religion offering science anything, no, it can't offer science anything in the means of a conventional, rigorous scientific method to discover new knowledge. Nevertheless, why discount it altogether, or "ignore" it (as an earlier poster put it), because it is an unconventional source of inspiration? Kekul figured out how benzene molecules were constructed by imagining snakes swallowing their own tails. Not exactly a conventional method. Many early scientists (and some modern ones) were religious in the sense that they believed in a God and wanted to unravel the mysteries of creation. Sir Isaac Newton practiced alchemy, and this arcane 'science' formed the basis of modern chemistry. Perhaps the Emerald Tablets still contain valuable insights that are ignored by modern scientists, or perhaps not. They apparently helped Newton. The Mayas had incredibly accurate calendars and advanced knowledge of astronomy as well as the Egyptians, who built structures, yet modern scientists are still challenged with figuring out their engineering feats. They were also religious societies. Some Buddists can seemingly levitate when in deep meditation, but since it can't explained in a pure scientific manner, it is debunked as trickery or an illusion. Religion cannot offer insights in the manner conventional science demands. Yet scientific knowledge has developed from inexplicable means in the past.Religion isn't perfect either, and when radical, fundamentalists reject science as whole and cling to only their religious faith, it doesn't work at all. I will give science that. True in a conventional sense. No, there is no need to have to blindly accept beliefs, just the possibility. That the unexplainable world of faith can be a way to attain knowledge about the natural world and have some merit despite that it remains unexplainable. The only compromise is perhaps science should become a little agnostic. Perhaps that is crude in your estimation. It think it would be mutually beneficial, though I strongly doubt you would agree.

Thanks for the link. I will explore this and other links other posters have shared. Perhaps by learning the lingo or the appropriate terms for idea sets others have that shape their beliefs, I will not be as bad about mislabeling and/or erroneously using blanket terms as I did earlier when I used the term 'evolutionists' as a synonym for 'atheists'.