Christianity vs. Science

[QUOTE="Ravirr"]Fact no case study is ever left with a clear cut definition of what causes there will always be the one kid who raises there hand and says I know a kid who has x and is y . While that kid maybe the minority in general terms we look at the majority of the group when discussing a concept like this. Just because there are some who say OMG I disagree, doesn't mean that the other 90% or so who agree are in conflict. Mumbles527

This is not a conflict.

http://godandscience.org/apologetics/why_are_scientists_atheists.html

Hmm ok great?:roll:

There doesn't have to be a conflict, but there obviously is...

MindFreeze

Maybe to ignorant people, but there is no conflict between the two.

[quote="Silver_Dragon17"] Original post was here Decessus

The cornerstone of the Christian faith is the death and ressurection of Jesus Christ. This belief is common to all denominations of Christianity, and without it one can hardly be called a Christian. How can you claim that science and Christianity can coexist, when the very pillar of the Christian belief contradicts our scientific understanding of death?

Some people who claim to be Christians do NOT believe in the Ressurection.

Anyway, this is against our understanding of death, yes. But that does not mean tha the religion is against science. Science and Christianity coexist. It isn't a matter of how can they, it's a matter of do they, and they very much do.

Silverdragon.. you truly are blind to the facts aren't you? Science has facts on evolution, the bible is the opposite. Science has facts on the world being billions of years old, the bible says its only 6,000-10,000 years old.. science and the bible are total opposites.. Facts vs. Faith... there are very obvious conflicts with religion and science especially in todays day and age when science keep progressing..

It looks like to me that you have done some research on science recently and you can't deny the proof and facts anymore.. so now you're looking for reasons to say that they are "one" and not against each other..

Here is the main conflict between religion and science:

Loonie

Too bad that that isn't a conflict. . .That's a comparison of how reasoning is used, and a crappy one at that.

Religion only conflicts with science if it goes against science.

Silverdragon.. you truly are blind to the facts aren't you? Science has facts on evolution, the bible is the opposite. Science has facts on the world being billions of years old, the bible says its only 6,000-10,000 years old.. science and the bible are total opposites.. Facts vs. Faith... there are very obvious conflicts with religion and science especially in todays day and age when science keep progressing..

It looks like to me that you have done some research on science recently and you can't deny the proof and facts anymore.. so now you're looking for reasons to say that they are "one" and not against each other..

import_fighter1

Oh my god. . .you are so freaking blind.

The Bible does not say evolution did not happen.

The Bible does not say the Earth is 6,000 years old.

There is no conflict.

[QUOTE="import_fighter1"]

Silverdragon.. you truly are blind to the facts aren't you? Science has facts on evolution, the bible is the opposite. Science has facts on the world being billions of years old, the bible says its only 6,000-10,000 years old.. science and the bible are total opposites.. Facts vs. Faith... there are very obvious conflicts with religion and science especially in todays day and age when science keep progressing..

It looks like to me that you have done some research on science recently and you can't deny the proof and facts anymore.. so now you're looking for reasons to say that they are "one" and not against each other..

Silver_Dragon17

Oh my god. . .you are so freaking blind.

The Bible does not say evolution did not happen.

The Bible does not say the Earth is 6,000 years old.

There is no conflict.

LOL wow...

Maybe you're right, and maybe you're wrong, you only need history to disprove religion.mark4091

Really? Then by all means give us this magic history.

[QUOTE="Silver_Dragon17"][QUOTE="import_fighter1"]

Silverdragon.. you truly are blind to the facts aren't you? Science has facts on evolution, the bible is the opposite. Science has facts on the world being billions of years old, the bible says its only 6,000-10,000 years old.. science and the bible are total opposites.. Facts vs. Faith... there are very obvious conflicts with religion and science especially in todays day and age when science keep progressing..

It looks like to me that you have done some research on science recently and you can't deny the proof and facts anymore.. so now you're looking for reasons to say that they are "one" and not against each other..

import_fighter1

Oh my god. . .you are so freaking blind.

The Bible does not say evolution did not happen.

The Bible does not say the Earth is 6,000 years old.

There is no conflict.

LOL wow...

Yeah. The Bible does not say "Evolution is completely wrong!" Nor does it say "Oh, and btw, the Earth is 6,000."

Please give a point where it does.

In fact, I can give verses that show the Bible says the Earth is old.

Ya..that sure goes with science doesn't it...

crap

Ya..that sure goes with science doesn't it...

import_fighter1

Holy freaking hell. . .did you just use a SATRICAL MOTIVATION POSTER to describe Christianity?! That is simply pathetic.

Some people who claim to be Christians do NOT believe in the Ressurection.

Anyway, this is against our understanding of death, yes. But that does not mean tha the religion is against science. Science and Christianity coexist. It isn't a matter of how can they, it's a matter of do they, and they very much do.

Silver_Dragon17

People can claim to be whatever they want, but the central theme of the New Testament is the ressurection of Jesus Christ. Without this belief, you're not a Christian.

When a priest teaches somebody that it is possible to bring somebody back from the dead, he is teaching that person something that is in direct opposition to our scientific understanding. How is this not against science?

[QUOTE="import_fighter1"]

crap

Ya..that sure goes with science doesn't it...

Silver_Dragon17

Holy freaking hell. . .did you just use a SATRICAL MOTIVATION POSTER to describe Christianity?! That is simply pathetic.

ya it's being sarcastic but that is the same exact thing the bible teaches...

[QUOTE="Decessus"]

[quote="Silver_Dragon17"] Original post was here Silver_Dragon17

The cornerstone of the Christian faith is the death and ressurection of Jesus Christ. This belief is common to all denominations of Christianity, and without it one can hardly be called a Christian. How can you claim that science and Christianity can coexist, when the very pillar of the Christian belief contradicts our scientific understanding of death?

Some people who claim to be Christians do NOT believe in the Ressurection.

Anyway, this is against our understanding of death, yes. But that does not mean tha the religion is against science. Science and Christianity coexist. It isn't a matter of how can they, it's a matter of do they, and they very much do.

[QUOTE="Silver_Dragon17"]

Some people who claim to be Christians do NOT believe in the Ressurection.

Anyway, this is against our understanding of death, yes. But that does not mean tha the religion is against science. Science and Christianity coexist. It isn't a matter of how can they, it's a matter of do they, and they very much do.

Decessus

People can claim to be whatever they want, but the central theme of the New Testament is the ressurection of Jesus Christ. Without this belief, you're not a Christian.

When a priest teaches somebody that it is possible to bring somebody back from the dead, he is teaching that person something that is in direct opposition to our scientific understanding. How is this not against science?

Nobody teaches that it is possible to bring somebody back from the dead.:|

God, a part of religion, is omnipotent, meaning He can do anything. . .including bring people back from the dead. If the religion was saying something like anybody can bring people back from the dead, then we have a conflict. But saying that God can bring people back from the dead doesn't conflict anything, since God is the focus of the religion.

[QUOTE="Silver_Dragon17"][QUOTE="import_fighter1"]

crap

Ya..that sure goes with science doesn't it...

import_fighter1

Holy freaking hell. . .did you just use a SATRICAL MOTIVATION POSTER to describe Christianity?! That is simply pathetic.

ya it's being sarcastic but that is the same exact thing the bible teaches...

Ha, no, it isn't.:roll:

How do they co-exist if they contradict each other?hair001

Because they don't.:|

Do you know how much the Bible agrees with modern science? Read this: http://godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencebible.html

It looks like you have some anger bottled up inside you Silver_Dragon17, would you like to talk about it?:)MindFreeze

Your little link is messed up.:lol:

Nobody teaches that it is possible to bring somebody back from the dead.:|

God, a part of religion, is omnipotent, meaning He can do anything. . .including bring people back from the dead. If the religion was saying something like anybody can bring people back from the dead, then we have a conflict. But saying that God can bring people back from the dead doesn't conflict anything, since God is the focus of the religion.

Silver_Dragon17

You completely contradict yourself in this paragraph. First you say that nobody teaches that it is possible to bring somebody back from the dead, and then in the very next paragraph you preach that God is omnipotent and can bring people back from the dead.

It is the act of bringing somebody back from the dead that conflicts with science. It doesn't matter who performs the act. By claiming God can bring people back from the dead, you are making a statement that is in direct opposition to our scientific understanding of death.

It looks like you have some anger bottled up inside you Silver_Dragon17, would you like to talk about it?:)MindFreeze

I think so too, he was always trying to get proof and in disbelief about the facts and i think it finally hit him, now all of a sudden science and religion are best friends and its all happy times now...

[QUOTE="mark4091"]Maybe you're right, and maybe you're wrong, you only need history to disprove religion.Silver_Dragon17

Really? Then by all means give us this magic history.

Funny how you talk about magic huh? anyways I'm going biking, but hopefully somebody will post the history of religion for you with the ages ect and all the prophets with the same birth date, born of a virgin mother ect.

I sense a massive amount of insecurity...EboyLOL

-

[QUOTE="EboyLOL"]I sense a massive amount of insecurity...mark4091

-

[QUOTE="Silver_Dragon17"]

Nobody teaches that it is possible to bring somebody back from the dead.:|

God, a part of religion, is omnipotent, meaning He can do anything. . .including bring people back from the dead. If the religion was saying something like anybody can bring people back from the dead, then we have a conflict. But saying that God can bring people back from the dead doesn't conflict anything, since God is the focus of the religion.

Decessus

You completely contradict yourself in this paragraph. First you say that nobody teaches that it is possible to bring somebody back from the dead, and then in the very next paragraph you preach that God is omnipotent and can bring people back from the dead.

It is the act of bringing somebody back from the dead that conflicts with science. It doesn't matter who performs the act. By claiming God can bring people back from the dead, you are making a statement that is in direct opposition to our scientific understanding of death.

What I mean is, nobody teaches that it is possible to bring somebody back from the dead. Because it isn't.

UNLESS God, who can do the impossible, does it.

It only conflicts with science if it says that people can always come back from the dead, or if people can bring other people back from the dead. Which it doesn't. It only says that God can bring people back from the dead.

In any case, this isn't religion conflicting with science. This is God conflicting with science. A whole other topic.

[QUOTE="hair001"] How do they co-exist if they contradict each other?Silver_Dragon17

Because they don't.:|

Do you know how much the Bible agrees with modern science? Read this: http://godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencebible.html

[QUOTE="mark4091"]

[QUOTE="EboyLOL"]I sense a massive amount of insecurity...EboyLOL

-

He wrote in super tiny font and it just looks like a - now.

[QUOTE="Silver_Dragon17"]

[QUOTE="mark4091"]Maybe you're right, and maybe you're wrong, you only need history to disprove religion.mark4091

Really? Then by all means give us this magic history.

Funny how you talk about magic huh? anyways I'm going biking, but hopefully somebody will post the history of religion for you with the ages ect and all the prophets with the same birth date, born of a virgin mother ect.

All of them proven to be utter BS. . . .

I haven't talked about magic.;)

[QUOTE="Silver_Dragon17"]

[QUOTE="mark4091"]Maybe you're right, and maybe you're wrong, you only need history to disprove religion.mark4091

Really? Then by all means give us this magic history.

Funny how you talk about magic huh? anyways I'm going biking, but hopefully somebody will post the history of religion for you with the ages ect and all the prophets with the same birth date, born of a virgin mother ect.

you bring up a good point about people being born from a virgin. Another thing that goes against science.. it's pretty clear that somebody was using chloroform and slipped his willy in her..

i'm being sarcastic for you serious ones but you get my point that you cannot be born from a virgin..

[QUOTE="MindFreeze"]It looks like you have some anger bottled up inside you Silver_Dragon17, would you like to talk about it?:)import_fighter1

I think so too, he was always trying to get proof and in disbelief about the facts and i think it finally hit him, now all of a sudden science and religion are best friends and its all happy times now...

What the hell are you talking about? I've always loved science.

[QUOTE="mark4091"][QUOTE="Silver_Dragon17"]

[QUOTE="mark4091"]Maybe you're right, and maybe you're wrong, you only need history to disprove religion.import_fighter1

Really? Then by all means give us this magic history.

Funny how you talk about magic huh? anyways I'm going biking, but hopefully somebody will post the history of religion for you with the ages ect and all the prophets with the same birth date, born of a virgin mother ect.

you bring up a good point about people being born from a virgin. Another thing that goes against science.. it's pretty clear that somebody was using chloroform and slipped his willy in her..

i'm being sarcastic for you serious ones but you get my point that you cannot be born from a virgin..

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16298548/

[QUOTE="EboyLOL"][QUOTE="mark4091"]

[QUOTE="EboyLOL"]I sense a massive amount of insecurity...MindFreeze

-

He wrote in super tiny font and it just looks like a - now.

[QUOTE="Silver_Dragon17"]

[QUOTE="mark4091"]Maybe you're right, and maybe you're wrong, you only need history to disprove religion.mark4091

Really? Then by all means give us this magic history.

Funny how you talk about magic huh? anyways I'm going biking, but hopefully somebody will post the history of religion for you with the ages ect and all the prophets with the same birth date, born of a virgin mother ect.

[QUOTE="mark4091"][QUOTE="Silver_Dragon17"]

[QUOTE="mark4091"]Maybe you're right, and maybe you're wrong, you only need history to disprove religion.Ezgam3r

Really? Then by all means give us this magic history.

Funny how you talk about magic huh? anyways I'm going biking, but hopefully somebody will post the history of religion for you with the ages ect and all the prophets with the same birth date, born of a virgin mother ect.

Exactly. . .anybody who actually looks up those stupid claims will see that they are completely unfounded in egyptology or any other pagan belief.

What I mean is, nobody teaches that it is possible to bring somebody back from the dead. Because it isn't.

UNLESS God, who can do the impossible, does it.

It only conflicts with science if it says that people can always come back from the dead, or if people can bring other people back from the dead. Which it doesn't. It only says that God can bring people back from the dead.

In any case, this isn't religion conflicting with science. This is God conflicting with science. A whole other topic.

Silver_Dragon17

As I have already said, the central theme of Christianity is the death and ressurection of Jesus Christ. It is taught that God ressurected Jesus Christ from the dead. Our scientific understanding of death says that such a thing is impossible.

[QUOTE="import_fighter1"][QUOTE="mark4091"][QUOTE="Silver_Dragon17"]

[QUOTE="mark4091"]Maybe you're right, and maybe you're wrong, you only need history to disprove religion.Silver_Dragon17

Really? Then by all means give us this magic history.

Funny how you talk about magic huh? anyways I'm going biking, but hopefully somebody will post the history of religion for you with the ages ect and all the prophets with the same birth date, born of a virgin mother ect.

you bring up a good point about people being born from a virgin. Another thing that goes against science.. it's pretty clear that somebody was using chloroform and slipped his willy in her..

i'm being sarcastic for you serious ones but you get my point that you cannot be born from a virgin..

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16298548/

LOL try and find one on a human, we are not komodo dragons... wow..

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16298548/

Silver_Dragon17

Natural parthenogenesis is impossible in mammals.

Edit: I added natural, because it is theoretically possible in a laboratory setting.

LOL try and find one on a human, we are not komodo dragons... wow..

import_fighter1

The way that it could happen is if the woman had both an X and Y chromosome, which occurs in 1 in 5 million women. So, this possibility cannot be completely ruled out as impossible.

[QUOTE="import_fighter1"][QUOTE="mark4091"][QUOTE="Silver_Dragon17"]

[QUOTE="mark4091"]Maybe you're right, and maybe you're wrong, you only need history to disprove religion.Silver_Dragon17

Really? Then by all means give us this magic history.

Funny how you talk about magic huh? anyways I'm going biking, but hopefully somebody will post the history of religion for you with the ages ect and all the prophets with the same birth date, born of a virgin mother ect.

you bring up a good point about people being born from a virgin. Another thing that goes against science.. it's pretty clear that somebody was using chloroform and slipped his willy in her..

i'm being sarcastic for you serious ones but you get my point that you cannot be born from a virgin..

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16298548/

[QUOTE="import_fighter1"]

LOL try and find one on a human, we are not komodo dragons... wow..

Silver_Dragon17

The way that it could happen is if the woman had both an X and Y chromosome, which occurs in 1 in 5 million women. So, this possibility cannot be completely ruled out as impossible.

Yes it can.

[QUOTE="Silver_Dragon17"]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16298548/

Decessus

parthenogenesis is impossible in mammals.

I know. But he said it's impossible for a virgin to give birth. He didn't say anything about mammals.

[QUOTE="Decessus"][QUOTE="Silver_Dragon17"]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16298548/

Silver_Dragon17

parthenogenesis is impossible in mammals.

I know. But he said it's impossible for a virgin to give birth. He didn't say anything about mammals.

[QUOTE="Silver_Dragon17"][QUOTE="import_fighter1"]

LOL try and find one on a human, we are not komodo dragons... wow..

Decessus

The way that it could happen is if the woman had both an X and Y chromosome, which occurs in 1 in 5 million women. So, this possibility cannot be completely ruled out as impossible.

Yes it can.

No it can't.

[QUOTE="Decessus"][QUOTE="Silver_Dragon17"]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16298548/

Silver_Dragon17

parthenogenesis is impossible in mammals.

I know. But he said it's impossible for a virgin to give birth. He didn't say anything about mammals.

LOL again, i very specifically said PEOPLE in my original post...

[QUOTE="Silver_Dragon17"][QUOTE="Decessus"][QUOTE="Silver_Dragon17"]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16298548/

mig_killer2

parthenogenesis is impossible in mammals.

I know. But he said it's impossible for a virgin to give birth. He didn't say anything about mammals.

Or was she..

[QUOTE="Decessus"][QUOTE="Silver_Dragon17"][QUOTE="import_fighter1"]

LOL try and find one on a human, we are not komodo dragons... wow..

Silver_Dragon17

The way that it could happen is if the woman had both an X and Y chromosome, which occurs in 1 in 5 million women. So, this possibility cannot be completely ruled out as impossible.

Yes it can.

No it can't.

[QUOTE="mig_killer2"][QUOTE="Silver_Dragon17"][QUOTE="Decessus"][QUOTE="Silver_Dragon17"]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16298548/

MindFreeze

parthenogenesis is impossible in mammals.

I know. But he said it's impossible for a virgin to give birth. He didn't say anything about mammals.

Or was she..

I know. But he said it's impossible for a virgin to give birth. He didn't say anything about mammals.

Silver_Dragon17

He shouldn't have to. It was an obvious implication since we are talking about Christianity.