What do religious/creationists think about fossiles?

[QUOTE="ghoklebutter"][QUOTE="RationalAtheist"]

Are you saying you can rationalise faith? Please go on.

unholymight

They are based on opposite philosophies.

-

Edited on Oct 8, 2009 12:23 am GMT Edited zero total times. The number below is incorrect.

Exactly why you can believe in both with no conflict. The philosophies behind them are irrelevant to eachother.

[QUOTE="RationalAtheist"]

[QUOTE="ghoklebutter"]

I never said that. I'm only saying that you can believe in science and religion without conflict.

ghoklebutter

Perhaps you can but I couldn't, since the basis for the beliefs seems so contrary.

[QUOTE="unholymight"]

[QUOTE="ghoklebutter"] I never said that. I'm only saying that you can believe in science and religion without conflict.Theokhoth

They are based on opposite philosophies.

-

Edited on Oct 8, 2009 12:23 am GMT Edited zero total times. The number below is incorrect.

Exactly why you can believe in both with no conflict. The philosophies behind them are irrelevant to eachother.

[QUOTE="RationalAtheist"]

[QUOTE="ghoklebutter"]

I never said that. I'm only saying that you can believe in science and religion without conflict.

Penguinchow

Perhaps you can but I couldn't, since the basis for the beliefs seems so contrary.

The scientific method reaches decisions based on rational deduction. religions need adherents to have faith that the inductive logic used to justify their religion is correct. The scientific framework also accepts a relativist view and is aimed at discovery. Most religious doctrines are absolute and aimed at conversion.

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

[QUOTE="unholymight"] The foundation of science is the scientific method ... Faith is the antithesis of the scientific method.

They are based on opposite philosophies.

-

Edited on Oct 8, 2009 12:23 am GMT Edited zero total times. The number below is incorrect.

unholymight

Exactly why you can believe in both with no conflict. The philosophies behind them are irrelevant to eachother.

If you're going to argue that nobody can believe in God and science without a conflict, then you obviously take the latter approach.

One is for nature, one is for meaning. They are irrelevant to eachother.

[QUOTE="Penguinchow"][QUOTE="RationalAtheist"]

Perhaps you can but I couldn't, since the basis for the beliefs seems so contrary.

RationalAtheist

The scientific method reaches decisions based on rational deduction. religions need adherents to have faith that the inductive logic used to justify their religion is correct. The scientific framework also accepts a relativist view and is aimed at discovery. Most religious doctrines are absolute and aimed at conversion.

Wait; what's relativistic about science?

[QUOTE="Penguinchow"][QUOTE="RationalAtheist"]

Perhaps you can but I couldn't, since the basis for the beliefs seems so contrary.

RationalAtheist

The scientific method reaches decisions based on rational deduction. religions need adherents to have faith that the inductive logic used to justify their religion is correct. The scientific framework also accepts a relativist view and is aimed at discovery. Most religious doctrines are absolute and aimed at conversion.

Beware the RationalAtheist...he's very good at this...last time I had this same discussion with him, even I struggled :P

[QUOTE="Penguinchow"][QUOTE="RationalAtheist"]

Perhaps you can but I couldn't, since the basis for the beliefs seems so contrary.

RationalAtheist

The scientific method reaches decisions based on rational deduction. religions need adherents to have faith that the inductive logic used to justify their religion is correct. The scientific framework also accepts a relativist view and is aimed at discovery. Most religious doctrines are absolute and aimed at conversion.

Wait; what's relativistic about science?

Theokhoth

Human models of understanding change radically with scientific discovery.

[QUOTE="RationalAtheist"]

[QUOTE="Penguinchow"] How so?shaunk89

The scientific method reaches decisions based on rational deduction. religions need adherents to have faith that the inductive logic used to justify their religion is correct. The scientific framework also accepts a relativist view and is aimed at discovery. Most religious doctrines are absolute and aimed at conversion.

Beware the RationalAtheist...he's very good at this...last time I had this same discussion with him, even I struggled :P

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

Wait; what's relativistic about science?

RationalAtheist

Human models of understanding change radically with scientific discovery.

That's the opposite of relativistic. Relativistic would leave scientific discoveries and evidences up to individual interpretation, leaving the very purpose of science utterly meaningless.

[QUOTE="unholymight"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

Exactly why you can believe in both with no conflict. The philosophies behind them are irrelevant to eachother.

Theokhoth

If you're going to argue that nobody can believe in God and science without a conflict, then you obviously take the latter approach.

One is for nature, one is for meaning. They are irrelevant to eachother.

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

[QUOTE="unholymight"] One says evidence takes precedence over belief. The other says belief takes precedence over evidence.unholymight

If you're going to argue that nobody can believe in God and science without a conflict, then you obviously take the latter approach.

One is for nature, one is for meaning. They are irrelevant to eachother.

I didn't say anything to the contrary.

To say that believing in both is impossible is rather ludicrous, as there are many people now and throughout history who believed in both and made great advancements in both.

All very true. But how do they conflict with each other? Whats to keep one from using faith in his religion and rational deduction in his science? In fact to me the study of science only seems to turn up more complex systems pointing towards intelligent design. When it is proved to me that the two cannot coexist in my life then your point will be valid.Penguinchow

I can't see why there is any seperation. Science endevours to discover and explain the natural universe. There are no exceptions to discovery, which is largely amoral in nature. Why seperate faith, when science can explain the psychology of faith well enough and has provided us with a converging model of our reality without resorting to God. Mysteries and miracles thirty years ago are routine now, as the supernatural becomes part of natural science.

Most people do coexist with science and faith quite happily. I can't, since I see a huge disconnect between the discovery of our global human history and development of belief systems, the arbitrary choice of religion to believe in and the human desire to discover their universe using the unbiased, godless, impartial framework that's already bourne us such advancement.

[QUOTE="unholymight"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

If you're going to argue that nobody can believe in God and science without a conflict, then you obviously take the latter approach.

One is for nature, one is for meaning. They are irrelevant to eachother.

Theokhoth

I didn't say anything to the contrary.

To say that believing in both is impossible is rather ludicrous, as there are many people now and throughout history who believed in both and made great advancements in both.

[QUOTE="unholymight"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

If you're going to argue that nobody can believe in God and science without a conflict, then you obviously take the latter approach.

One is for nature, one is for meaning. They are irrelevant to eachother.

Theokhoth

I didn't say anything to the contrary.

To say that believing in both is impossible is rather ludicrous, as there are many people now and throughout history who believed in both and made great advancements in both.

That's the opposite of relativistic. Relativistic would leave scientific discoveries and evidences up to individual interpretation, leaving the very purpose of science utterly meaningless.

Theokhoth

That's not my interpretation. Perhaps I should stop using Wiki and dictionaries.

Relativistic viewpoints are understood in terms of a social, cultural or technical contexts. In this case, I'm saying scientific models of understanding are always open to scrutiny and change, if incontrovertible new evidence is discovered.

Arbitrality vs objectivity. The scientific method represents the purest form of the latter, where nothing is assumed to be true unless preceding evidence is there to stand for it. It does not take a true scientist to perform scientific experiments and yield results. A religious man can watch the mating patterns of frogs and base conclusions on his findings. However, the scientific method is as it is: nothing comes before evidence. If you want to believe in both, then really you are believing in the path of magic, and you automatically cause the scientific method (in your mind) to be a part of that magic, warping it in the process. There is nothing more certain: One cannot believe in the priority of evidence and the nonpriority of evidence both at the same time.unholymight

False dilemma granted by an oversimplification developed from a strawman.

The scientific method was created by religious people. To claim that the two are diametrically opposed is to simply blind yourself to the world entirely. Your view is more magic than mine.

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

That's the opposite of relativistic. Relativistic would leave scientific discoveries and evidences up to individual interpretation, leaving the very purpose of science utterly meaningless.

RationalAtheist

That's not my interpretation. Perhaps I should stop using Wiki and dictionaries.

Relativistic viewpoints are understood in terms of a social, cultural or technical contexts. In this case, I'm saying scientific models of understanding are always open to scrutiny and change, if incontrovertible new evidence is discovered.

You really should stop reading Wiki, because every time you quote me an article I can find where it directly contradicts your position.

Common statements that might be considered relativistic include:

• "That's true for you but not for me."
• "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder."
• "You can't judge other cultures by the standards of your own."

All three of these contradict science. Science is not based in culture or social ideas. As for "technical," that's too vague a term.

[QUOTE="Penguinchow"]

All very true. But how do they conflict with each other? Whats to keep one from using faith in his religion and rational deduction in his science? In fact to me the study of science only seems to turn up more complex systems pointing towards intelligent design. When it is proved to me that the two cannot coexist in my life then your point will be valid.RationalAtheist

I can't see why there is any seperation. Science endevours to discover and explain the natural universe. There are no exceptions to discovery, which is largely amoral in nature. Why seperate faith, when science can explain the psychology of faith well enough and has provided us with a converging model of our reality without resorting to God. Mysteries and miracles thirty years ago are routine now, as the supernatural becomes part of natural science.

Most people do coexist with science and faith quite happily. I can't, since I see a huge disconnect between the discovery of our global human history and development of belief systems, the arbitrary choice of religion to believe in and the human desire to discover their universe using the unbiased, godless, impartial framework that's already bourne us such advancement.

[QUOTE="unholymight"] Arbitrality vs objectivity. The scientific method represents the purest form of the latter, where nothing is assumed to be true unless preceding evidence is there to stand for it. It does not take a true scientist to perform scientific experiments and yield results. A religious man can watch the mating patterns of frogs and base conclusions on his findings. However, the scientific method is as it is: nothing comes before evidence. If you want to believe in both, then really you are believing in the path of magic, and you automatically cause the scientific method (in your mind) to be a part of that magic, warping it in the process. There is nothing more certain: One cannot believe in the priority of evidence and the nonpriority of evidence both at the same time.Theokhoth

False dilemma granted by an oversimplification developed from a strawman.

The scientific method was created by religious people. To claim that the two are diametrically opposed is to simply blind yourself to the world entirely. Your view is more magic than mine.

You really should stop reading Wiki, because every time you quote me an article I can find where it directly contradicts your position.

Common statements that might be considered relativistic include:

• "That's true for you but not for me."
• "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder."
• "You can't judge other cultures by the standards of your own."

All three of these contradict science. Science is not based in culture or social ideas. As for "technical," that's too vague a term.

Theokhoth

I can't believe you're being so silly. It's like this:

Science accepts new models of understanding may supercede current models of understanding. In this way, scientific knowledge is relative - in that it's not absolute - it may change.

I don't think it was a strawman--you said someone could believe in both because past scientists have been religious. I said they wrapped magic around it and saw the scientific method through magical goggles.

This silly analogy is a strawman because it implies that they were somehow worse scientists because they were also religious.

The scientific method represents a principle in analysis where observation is needed to explain other observations. I wouldn't say it was created, since principles can exist without being written down on paper (eg. principle of evolution of entities that can reproduce and undergo inheritable changes).

Principles can't be created; but they can be organized and utilized.

They merely stumbled upon it and attempted to replicate parts of it in gathering information. Their philosophy, however is not entirely scientific (due to the religious aspect).

Science -----> Nature.

Religion -----> Meaning.

Science does not touch meaning.

Religion only remarks that God made nature.

They are irrelevant to eachother.

One can be fully scientific and fully religious.

The human mind is interesting in that it can believe in two opposing philosophies by alternating which one it believes in at different times.

. . .And you base this assertion on what?

I like to call this nonuniform,

Others call it cognitive dissonance; the only problem with your theory is that cognitive dissonance eventually gives way to one or the other, yet people can go their entire lives believing both.

and the alternation is simply an excuse for not wanting to get rid of the magical parts, for whatever reason.

Oversimplification.

The result is that since their adoptation of the philosophy is impure, they have not really adopted it (since if you look at it from this point, they didn't have the philosophy at all).

And that is a very ignorant point of view, as it basically brushes over everyone who ever did by labelling their beliefs as something they aren't and going by that label regardless of any contradicting showcase; essentially you are doing everything those you think of a religious persuasion always do.

unholymight

Carbon dating is a lie.

Those bones were put there and are fake. I blame atheists.

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

You really should stop reading Wiki, because every time you quote me an article I can find where it directly contradicts your position.

Common statements that might be considered relativistic include:

• "That's true for you but not for me."
• "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder."
• "You can't judge other cultures by the standards of your own."

All three of these contradict science. Science is not based in culture or social ideas. As for "technical," that's too vague a term.

RationalAtheist

I can't believe you're being so silly. It's like this:

Science accepts new models of understanding may supercede current models of understanding. In this way, scientific knowledge is relative - in that it's not absolute - it may change.

Changing based on the acquisition of objective knowledge is the exact opposite of relativism.

In addition, objective and absolute are two different things. Objective can appear to change based on human understanding; absolute does not change, period.

[QUOTE="unholymight"] I don't think it was a strawman--you said someone could believe in both because past scientists have been religious. I said they wrapped magic around it and saw the scientific method through magical goggles.

This silly analogy is a strawman because it implies that they were somehow worse scientists because they were also religious.

The scientific method represents a principle in analysis where observation is needed to explain other observations. I wouldn't say it was created, since principles can exist without being written down on paper (eg. principle of evolution of entities that can reproduce and undergo inheritable changes).

Principles can't be created; but they can be organized and utilized.

They merely stumbled upon it and attempted to replicate parts of it in gathering information. Their philosophy, however is not entirely scientific (due to the religious aspect).

Science -----> Nature.

Religion -----> Meaning.

Science does not touch meaning.

Religion only remarks that God made nature.

They are irrelevant to eachother.

One can be fully scientific and fully religious.

The human mind is interesting in that it can believe in two opposing philosophies by alternating which one it believes in at different times.

. . .And you base this assertion on what?

I like to call this nonuniform,

Others call it cognitive dissonance; the only problem with your theory is that cognitive dissonance eventually gives way to one or the other, yet people can go their entire leaves believing both.

and the alternation is simply an excuse for not wanting to get rid of the magical parts, for whatever reason.

Oversimplification.

The result is that since their adoptation of the philosophy is impure, they have not really adopted it (since if you look at it from this point, they didn't have the philosophy at all).

And that is a very ignorant point of view, as it basically brushes over everyone who ever did by labelling their beliefs as something they aren't and going by that label regardless of any contradicting showcase; essentially you are doing everything those you think of a religious persuasion always do.

Theokhoth

I have to work on my essay.

Since it would be a cheap shot for me to leave a response to this and leave, I'm leaving with nothing ...

...

for now.

(hehehe)

[QUOTE="Engrish_Major"][QUOTE="Pirate700"]

I don't know of any Christians that don't believe in evolution (at least to an extent) or any that believe we walking with Dinosaurs or anything like that.

Pirate700

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

[QUOTE="unholymight"] I don't think it was a strawman--you said someone could believe in both because past scientists have been religious. I said they wrapped magic around it and saw the scientific method through magical goggles.

This silly analogy is a strawman because it implies that they were somehow worse scientists because they were also religious.

The scientific method represents a principle in analysis where observation is needed to explain other observations. I wouldn't say it was created, since principles can exist without being written down on paper (eg. principle of evolution of entities that can reproduce and undergo inheritable changes).

Principles can't be created; but they can be organized and utilized.

They merely stumbled upon it and attempted to replicate parts of it in gathering information. Their philosophy, however is not entirely scientific (due to the religious aspect).

Science -----> Nature.

Religion -----> Meaning.

Science does not touch meaning.

Religion only remarks that God made nature.

They are irrelevant to eachother.

One can be fully scientific and fully religious.

The human mind is interesting in that it can believe in two opposing philosophies by alternating which one it believes in at different times.

. . .And you base this assertion on what?

I like to call this nonuniform,

Others call it cognitive dissonance; the only problem with your theory is that cognitive dissonance eventually gives way to one or the other, yet people can go their entire leaves believing both.

and the alternation is simply an excuse for not wanting to get rid of the magical parts, for whatever reason.

Oversimplification.

The result is that since their adoptation of the philosophy is impure, they have not really adopted it (since if you look at it from this point, they didn't have the philosophy at all).

And that is a very ignorant point of view, as it basically brushes over everyone who ever did by labelling their beliefs as something they aren't and going by that label regardless of any contradicting showcase; essentially you are doing everything those you think of a religious persuasion always do.

unholymight

I have to work on my essay.

Since it would be a cheap shot for me to leave a response to this and leave, I'm leaving with nothing ...

...

for now.

(hehehe)

Oh, poo. I have homework too, you know; I just keep in sight of what's important.

Science endeavors to discover and explain the natural universe. Religion deals mostly with the supernatural. As for science explaining what was considered supernatural in the past, I believe that it is merely showing us more of the nature and tools that God created and uses. Just because science explains something does not mean that it is impossible that it was created by God. Religion is not against scientific advancement. In my studies I've learned more and more about the way the universe works. Does this enlightenment mean it could not have been created that way? Of course not. I, for one, see no reason the two cannot coexist. I mean no offense, but how do you see the two contradicting each other? Penguinchow

If you're talking about organised religion, then I can see some conflict in understanding the doctrine as literal (miracles and such). Religions have been known to oppose science (dark ages European Catholicism) and other faiths (YEC) discount some scientific models, while accepting others, based on the same scientific criteria.

Scientific discovery has found no evidence of creation from any god. The amoral nature of the universe suggests no creator to me. You need to embrace scientific discovery, since it plays such a huge part in our lives now. How you justify the need to include a belief system based on an upbringing, gut feeling, faith fear or whatever has nothing to do with how science justifies its models of understanding rationally.

[QUOTE="Penguinchow"]

Science endeavors to discover and explain the natural universe. Religion deals mostly with the supernatural. As for science explaining what was considered supernatural in the past, I believe that it is merely showing us more of the nature and tools that God created and uses. Just because science explains something does not mean that it is impossible that it was created by God. Religion is not against scientific advancement. In my studies I've learned more and more about the way the universe works. Does this enlightenment mean it could not have been created that way? Of course not. I, for one, see no reason the two cannot coexist. I mean no offense, but how do you see the two contradicting each other? RationalAtheist

If you're talking about organised religion, then I can see some conflict in understanding the doctrine as literal (miracles and such). Religions have been known to oppose science (dark ages European Catholicism) and other faiths (YEC) discount some scientific models, while accepting others, based on the same scientific criteria.

Scientific discovery has found no evidence of creation from any god. The amoral nature of the universe suggests no creator to me. You need to embrace scientific discovery, since it plays such a huge part in our lives now. How you justify the need to include a belief system based on an upbringing, gut feeling, faith fear or whatever has nothing to do with how science justifies its models of understanding rationally.

Changing based on the acquisition of objective knowledge is the exact opposite of relativism.

In addition, objective and absolute are two different things. Objective can appear to change based on human understanding; absolute does not change, period.

Theokhoth

Carry on deceiving yourself. The exact opposite - you really are being very silly now.

I'm referring to truth relativism - the scientific quest for knowledge I keep referring to.

Thanks for giving me some more definitions. I think I may be needing them with you!

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

Changing based on the acquisition of objective knowledge is the exact opposite of relativism.

In addition, objective and absolute are two different things. Objective can appear to change based on human understanding; absolute does not change, period.

RationalAtheist

Carry on deceiving yourself. The exact opposite - you really are being very silly now.

I'm referring to truth relativism - the scientific quest for knowledge I keep referring to.

Thanks for giving me some more definitions. I think I may be needing them with you!

Truth relativism is when the truth is considered to be left up to individual/cultural interpretation (opinion, essentially) and is antithetical to science, which seeks to eliminate interpretation. :roll:

I'm not the one deceiving himself.

I understand that religion in the past did sometimes oppress scientific progress. I was only speaking for, and can really ONLY speak for, my personal faith. I should have been more specific. The universe is amoral but we as human are not. This begs the question why? Why do we have morals? Its certainly not a result of evolution. You say that scientific discovery has found no evidence of creation from any God. I disagree, but we've already had that argument in another thread I believe so lets ignore my disagreement. Scientific discovery has also not found any evidence excluding the possibility of creation by any God. If the two have nothing whatsoever to do with one another what is the supposed paradox in being both religious and scientific? We must stay consistent here.

Penguinchow

Morals certainly not a result of evolution? I'd say they certainly are. Ever studied anthropology?

If there was scientific evidence for God, then God would be part of a scientific model of understanding.

I think the paradox for me is that if you accept science as the best way to get good information about the world around you, why do you need religion too? Religion does compete with science in trying to explain our purpose here and it used to compete in explaining our origins until it was rebutted with scientific discovery. The very origins and nature of faith don't hold up well to scientific scrutiny. If you think miracles can happen, how would you evaluate any scientific result?

I don't have lots of time in my hand so don't expect a reply immediately.

If you're talking about organised religion, then I can see some conflict in understanding the doctrine as literal (miracles and such). Which ones? Dose the miracles themselves have to be supernature in order to considner a miracle?

Religions have been known to oppose science (dark ages European Catholicism) and other faiths (YEC) discount some scientific models, while accepting others, based on the same scientific criteria.

Scientific discovery has found no evidence of creation from any god. That depends on how you interpet it.

The amoral nature of the universe suggests no creator to me.

Can you explain this "amoral" nature to me please?

You need to embrace scientific discovery, since it plays such a huge part in our lives now. Agreed

How you justify the need to include a belief system based on an upbringing, gut feeling, faith fear or whatever has nothing to do with how science justifies its models of understanding rationally.

Models of understanding rationally? Links please. (But I do not consider wiki a reliable source)

RationalAtheist

Truth relativism is when the truth is considered to be left up to individual/cultural interpretation (opinion, essentially) and is antithetical to science, which seeks to eliminate interpretation. :roll:

I'm not the one deceiving himself.

Theokhoth

Scientific discovery only serves a cultural purpose. /ROLLIER EYES/

Despite my clear examples given, you persist down this road with your own wiki pastes with the true context carefully left out.

If you read between the bits you've pasted here, you'd get the definition. Good luck!

Same here

I don't have lots of time in my hand so don't expect a reply immediately.

[QUOTE="RationalAtheist"]

If you're talking about organised religion, then I can see some conflict in understanding the doctrine as literal (miracles and such). Which ones? Dose the miracles themselves have to be supernature in order to considner a miracle? YES

Religions have been known to oppose science (dark ages European Catholicism) and other faiths (YEC) discount some scientific models, while accepting others, based on the same scientific criteria.

Scientific discovery has found no evidence of creation from any god. That depends on how you interpet it. NO GOD IN SCIENCE THEORIES ATM

The amoral nature of the universe suggests no creator to me.

Can you explain this "amoral" nature to me please? NOT MORAL

You need to embrace scientific discovery, since it plays such a huge part in our lives now. Agreed GOOD

How you justify the need to include a belief system based on an upbringing, gut feeling, faith fear or whatever has nothing to do with how science justifies its models of understanding rationally.

Models of understanding rationally? Links please. (But I do not consider wiki a reliable source) GOOGLE IT YOURSELF

alexside1

[QUOTE="Penguinchow"]

I understand that religion in the past did sometimes oppress scientific progress. I was only speaking for, and can really ONLY speak for, my personal faith. I should have been more specific. The universe is amoral but we as human are not. This begs the question why? Why do we have morals? Its certainly not a result of evolution. You say that scientific discovery has found no evidence of creation from any God. I disagree, but we've already had that argument in another thread I believe so lets ignore my disagreement. Scientific discovery has also not found any evidence excluding the possibility of creation by any God. If the two have nothing whatsoever to do with one another what is the supposed paradox in being both religious and scientific? We must stay consistent here.

RationalAtheist

Morals certainly not a result of evolution? I'd say they certainly are. Ever studied anthropology?

If there was scientific evidence for God, then God would be part of a scientific model of understanding.

I think the paradox for me is that if you accept science as the best way to get good information about the world around you, why do you need religion too? Religion does compete with science in trying to explain our purpose here and it used to compete in explaining our origins until it was rebutted with scientific discovery. The very origins and nature of faith don't hold up well to scientific scrutiny. If you think miracles can happen, how would you evaluate any scientific result?

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

Truth relativism is when the truth is considered to be left up to individual/cultural interpretation (opinion, essentially) and is antithetical to science, which seeks to eliminate interpretation. :roll:

I'm not the one deceiving himself.

RationalAtheist

Scientific discovery only serves a cultural purpose. /ROLLIER EYES/

Despite my clear examples given, you persist down this road with your own wiki pastes with the true context carefully left out.

If you read between the bits you've pasted here, you'd get the definition. Good luck!

Is it even possible to have Rollier Eyes? :P

I have always found learning about fossils to be interesting.

I see your point in that miracles cannot be scientific evaluated. But God is believed to exist outside the limitations of science and nature so anytime he directly changes it then there is no point in trying to explain it scientifically, it ceases to become a scientific thing and becomes a religious thing. Easy there, science does not in any way try to explain our purpose here. THAT is what religion is for. You are correct, science is the best way to get good information about the world around you. Religion is here for that purpose and meaning. Penguinchow

Its like, first you say God is part of nature, then you say God exists outside nature. When you say "there is no point in trying to explain it scientifically" you debase the scientific framework for DISCOVERY. Why is this boundary there, where religion steps in? Why has the boundary shrunk? Why so many different faiths?

Of course science endevours to exlpain why we are here. How can you trust a religion, when you know the evolution of humans on Earth has encompased many civlilisations with many different belief systems and practices. How do you know that your own specific interpretation of your divided branch of religion is the right one? How can you make a rational decision about your purpose with that sort of choice?

Religious meaning changes with time and as the faiths divide as the quibble over their assumptive interpretations from documents the presume to have divine qualities. The plethora of equally valid faith systems makes the choice meaningless for me.

I don't know of any Christians that don't believe in evolution (at least to an extent) or any that believe we walking with Dinosaurs or anything like that.

Pirate700

Really? Most of the Christians in my area certainly don't believe in evolution.

Which ones? Dose the miracles themselves have to be supernature in order to considner a miracle? YES

That depends on how you interpet it. NO GOD IN SCIENCE THEORIES ATM

Can you explain this "amoral" nature to me please? NOT MORAL

Agreed GOOD

Models of understanding rationally? Links please. (But I do not consider wiki a reliable source) GOOGLE IT YOURSELF

RationalAtheist

You hardy explain or elaborate anything, but instead you just yell at me.

[QUOTE="RationalAtheist"]

Which ones? Dose the miracles themselves have to be supernature in order to considner a miracle? YES

That depends on how you interpet it. NO GOD IN SCIENCE THEORIES ATM

Can you explain this "amoral" nature to me please? NOT MORAL

Agreed GOOD

Models of understanding rationally? Links please. (But I do not consider wiki a reliable source) GOOGLE IT YOURSELF

alexside1

You hardy explain or elaborate anything, but instead you just yell at me.

You didn't introduce yourself, state your position, quote tree my comments, but added your own words as mine, then said you were busy.

Now you complain about my answers, then accuse me of shouting at you.

Have you been to charm school? You certainly know how to make someone *want* to answer your questions.

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

You gonna give a real argument any time soon?

RationalAtheist

About the meanings you associate with certain words?

I'm not sure you'd be capable of sustaining a reasoned argument.

These meanings are the correct meanings. The sources you cite always seem to agree with me.

So far, all you've had are "You're being silly," "You can't argue," "I'm right, you're wrong," and "Ooh, look at this Wikipedia article!"

I think I'd do fine.

[QUOTE="RationalAtheist"]

Which ones? Dose the miracles themselves have to be supernature in order to considner a miracle? YES

That depends on how you interpet it. NO GOD IN SCIENCE THEORIES ATM

Can you explain this "amoral" nature to me please? NOT MORAL

Agreed GOOD

Models of understanding rationally? Links please. (But I do not consider wiki a reliable source) GOOGLE IT YOURSELF

alexside1

You hardy explain or elaborate anything, but instead you just yell at me.

He's quite good at that, innhe?

[QUOTE="alexside1"]

You hardy explain or elaborate anything, but instead you just yell at me.

RationalAtheist

You didn't introduce yourself, state your position, quote tree my comments, but added your own words as mine, then said you were busy.

Now you accuse me of shouting at you.

Have you been to charm school? You certainly know how to make someone want to answer your questions.