I just love scientists who are not threatened by religion and are open to the
possibilities. Considering all sources of truth or knowledge is a much more
flexible and meaningful way to approach life.
I think Angela would be mortified and embarassed if she read Michael Ash's
articles on the scientific method.
(God) organized what was already there. I don't see why life should be any
different," Robertson said.(Mormon View)Christianity believes in
creation ex nihilio. God calls things into existence: (Romans 4:17),God created
things visible and invisible(Col 1:16),God is the absolute creator of
everything(Acts 4:24),God existed before time ,implying He created time, (2 Tim
1:9, Titus 1:2). A short list.When God created the universe He made
no use of pre-existing material, nor did he make the world out of His own being.
Christian theism rejects the view that identifies the world with Gods being or
essence(pantheism). God alone is infinite ,eternal and independent, while the
physical universe, the creation is temporal, and contingent (matter is not
eternal)l but results from the power of Gods word.
You cannot "rectify" differences between science and religion. It's
quite simple, however, to "reconcile" them. Wanna borrow my
Sharrona, I don't see how the scriptures you reference specify that God created
everything ex nihilio. All they say is that he created it, or made it. It
doesn't say how, and it's perfectly reasonable to assume that he organized it
from matter that was already there, in accordance with natural laws. I don't
really view this as a challenge to God's omniscience, just an explanation as to
why he is omniscient. If you have to believe in ex nihilio creation to be a
Mainstream Christian, I have no problem not being a Mainstream Christian.
This woman is studying "the biomechanics of walking and running in
humans".How does this give her expertise and a valid opinion on
Cosmogony? Cosmology? Theogony? Philosophy of Science? Epistemology?
RE: sharrona | 9:51 a.m.creation, to create, means to organize, basic login dictates you need existant matter to organize,geneisis is quite clear God gave form to existig matter.How God
created the universe is not clear, and science doed know the answers though they
have posited many possibilities and theories.But the evolutoin of
Man is clearly incorrect.man did NOT evolve, but is very specific
creation.So called Science can make up a ton possiblities and think
up what ever they want, thye can invent guesses and call them facts, but that
is not truth.
Truth said, basic login dictates you need existant matter to organize? Greek
philosophy does, Not Christianity. Christians beleive in the uncreated creator
of all else. Goggle Aseity.Truth said creation, to create, means to
organize, geneis is quite clear God gave form to existing matter.No.To
create, make(bara,1254,Hebrew)This verb is of significance ,since it has only
God as the subject. Only God can create in the sense implied by bara. The verb
expresses creation out of nothing. In the beginning God(not gods) created the
heavens and the earth.(Genesis 1:1) Vines Biblical words.And the
Spirit shall return to God, who gave it(Eccl 12:7).By faith we
understand that the universe (Aionas=time) was formed by Gods word so what is
seen was not made out of what was visible.(Hebrews 11:3 Greek N.T.) Explicit
statement of ex nihlio.Mormonism teaches polytheism, Christianity teaches
"man did NOT evolve, but is very specific creation."and
you know this based on religious teachings?I assume that no
scientific discovery could trump those religious teachings.Hence,
the disconnect between science and religion.
The problem with religion is that it's based upon absolutesthere is no room for
adjustment. One either accepts a doctrinal "truth" on its face, or be
subjected to the consequences of unbelief. Such consequences in many religious
institutions are often defined as damnation or eternal punishmentThe
scientific method allows for an adjustment of a theory or conclusion through
hypothesis testing. Its open to the idea that "absolutes" are not
conducive to uncovering truth...that we learn and discover through objective
methodologies, not subjective doctrines that allegedly come from a supernatural
source.Generally speaking, the scientific method encourages a
challenge to a conclusion, not punishment for disbelief. In this sense, there is
indeed a conflict between science and religion.
"The problem with religion is that it's based upon absolutes[;] there is no
room for adjustment."Well, not really. Most religious
principles are not so rigid (except in the minds of certain dogmatic
individuals). Indeed, these principles are soft enough that they are constantly
being molded, redefined, and refined. Take the atonement of Christ, for
instance, which most Christians would place at the very core of their theology.
Theories of atonement have been discussed and dissected for centuries, and even
the most dogmatic explanations by LDS General Authorities contain weaknesses and
inconsistencies when examined carefully. Whoever said that the gospel is
beautifully simple and simply beautiful had a very superficial understanding of
"The problem with religion is that it's based upon absolutes; there is no
room for adjustment"I am convinced my religion (LDS) is indeed
quite flexible when it comes to integrating science and religion.I've concluded that the greatest disparity between Genesis and science is
"Time". Time is relative, as proven by Einstein. To say that the
Creation took 6 days is totally believable. So is Evolution,involving
millions/billions of years. And the Atonement spans our many generations. Another disparity is Dimensions. We perceive that our 3-dimensional
world is all there is in terms of reality. No so: additional dimensions are a
fact. Science proves there are additional dimensions (e.g. supergravity). And
our religion also proves addional dimensions (e.g. the Holy Ghost, Kolob).Science and Religion are very much compatible. What is not compatible
is our limited human understanding of the two.