The new fundamentalists

[yamangman]

I challenge you to give me one example of where Christianity conflicts with current scientific theory.

Belief in a deity.

What flouncy claims are you referring to exactly, and how exactly are you proposing they should be maintained?

That every aspect of being is due to divine intervention.

[Woodchuck2000]

Belief in a deity.

Exactly why does that conflict with science?

That every aspect of being is due to divine intervention.

I cannot think of a single religion where that is the case... Free will anyone?

You havn't answered the other questions either. All you've done is launch into a nonsensical and, frankly, insulting tirade which is no worse than the religious preaching you hate so much. If you're so awed by science then construct your arguments in a scientific fashion and we'll have a proper debate.

[TeePee]

Belief in a deity conflicts with science because science does not attribute unexplained phenomena to the supernatural.

[Woodchuck2000]

On a personal level I believe the Bible to be entirely factual although much of it is representitive and it does contain illustrations rather than literal explanations.

I'm of the opinion that that's largely impossible - if something is true then it shouldn't be interpreted. If the Bible says that God created the world in six days then either it's factual or it's not.

Would you suggest that the poetic books or the prophetic books are entirely factual?

My personal take is that the Bible is overly respected in many churches. Remember that this is a book written and compiled by man, and in our case translated (often imperfectly). It is an excellent template for general morality and basic formation of doctrine but I don't think it can or should be regarded as either complete, infallible, or literal. Trying to apply any of those results in literary paradoxes as fuddam amply demonstrated earlier in the thread.

[Woodchuck2000]

Belief in a deity conflicts with science because science does not attribute unexplained phenomena to the supernatural.

Neither does religion, necessarily. Give me an example where that causes a conflict as your statement is logically a non-sequitur.

[Woodchuck2000]

Belief in a deity conflicts with science because science does not attribute unexplained phenomena to the supernatural.

In fact, I've just had a better thought.

Imagine that I am a Jimmist. I believe in a deity (called Jim) who just sits on his sofa all day and doesnt do anything. How does this conflict with science?

[Stevo]

Job 38:16
(God says to Job)
"Have you journeyed to the springs of the sea or walked in the recesses of the deep?

This verse is one in a list in which God is telling Job about the wonders of creation.
It is clearly making references to springs under the sea also the "recesses of the deep" are most likely the valleys that are under the sea.
These things have only been discovered within the last century or so, with the use of submarines and sonar etc.

How could references to these springs and valleys under the sea appear in a book written over 5000 years ago?

Only conclusion I can reach is that God told them.

Also you may think that there is no evidence for Creation, that is simply untrue.
If you are going to be open minded you need to study both sides of the argument, I myself have studied evolution.
If you want evidence for creation I highly recommend going to http://www.answersingenesis.org/
and checking out their "answers" section.

Here is a sample from an article on the age of the earth.

1. Galaxies wind themselves up too fast

The stars of our own galaxy, the Milky Way, rotate about the galactic center with different speeds, the inner ones rotating faster than the outer ones. The observed rotation speeds are so fast that if our galaxy were more than a few hundred million years old, it would be a featureless disc of stars instead of its present spiral shape.1

Yet our galaxy is supposed to be at least 10 billion years old. Evolutionists call this ‘the winding-up dilemma’, which they have known about for fifty years. They have devised many theories to try to explain it, each one failing after a brief period of popularity. The same ‘winding-up’ dilemma also applies to other galaxies.

For the last few decades the favored attempt to resolve the dilemma has been a complex theory called ‘density waves’.1 The theory has conceptual problems, has to be arbitrarily and very finely tuned, and lately has been called into serious question by the Hubble Space Telescope’s discovery of very detailed spiral structure in the central hub of the ‘Whirlpool’ galaxy, M51.2

Its not very opened minded to rubbish something you know nothing about, so go and check out at least a few articles.

[TeePee]

In fact, I've just had a better thought.

Imagine that I am a Jimmist. I believe in a deity (called Jim) who just sits on his sofa all day and doesnt do anything. How does this conflict with science?

Because a deity is a preternatural being, by definition.

[TeePee]

This verse is one in a list in which God is telling Job about the wonders of creation.
It is clearly making references to springs under the sea also the "recesses of the deep" are most likely the valleys that are under the sea.
These things have only been discovered within the last century or so, with the use of submarines and sonar etc.

It's not that clear at all, you are simply interpreting it that way because you know about these things now.

At the time that phrase was written, the writers would have known that bodies of water such as lakes come from rivers and originate at springs. They would naturally assume that a huge ocean must flow from a huge river and a huge spring, which must be a 'wonder of creation'.

They would surely also have known about undersea caverns inshore, and could assume that those off shore at unattainable depths must be more wonderous...

If thats 'evidence', is it more likely that you are interpretting the message in a way diferently from how it was intended, or that that there is a supernatural cause?

Edit: And for unexplained things in the universe... As has been said, Science doesn't have answers for everything yet, but the scientific process is to keep trying those theories until we find one. Just because we aren't there yet, doesn't mean we should just label it supernatural.

[Woodchuck2000]

Because a deity is a preternatural being, by definition.

And why is that in conflict with science? You're yet to give me a logical, ordered or scientific reason why that's not possible.

[Edit] Assuming, that is, that the 'natural' is our four-dimensional world of everyday experience...[/Edit]

[Woodchuck2000]

Stevo - what are you trying to prove? There's an amazing tendency in this thread to wave Biblical passages about and say "See! See! I must be right!" without every defining what you're trying to prove.

I can't even see where you're going with this or why. Are you trying to say that the Bible is a scientific text? Are you trying to say that it's all literal? Are you trying to say that it's infallible? Taking a small quote out of context and relating it to a quasi-relevant recent discovery proves nothing.

[TeePee]

Because science is based on the laws of nature. If something breaks those laws, the scientific method is to look for new laws. To rely on a supernatural explanation is to pre-judge that such laws do not exist. Since it is the very business of science to look for laws of nature, giving up and saying something is supernatural means giving up science.

[G4Z]

Stevo,

thats a load of carp in all honesty, many things about how galaxies work are not fully explained yet but the basics are all nailed down.

One thing that hasnt been explained is why galaxies clump together at all, one theory that has been postulated is that the additional mass comes from a type of matter we cant detect and has been named dark matter. I know there is a lot of maths to back it up but it still has its problems like a lot of theories do and needs refinement.

However just because we have not explained somthing yet, does not mean we should presume god did it, that is not scientiffic and if you use that type of reasoning then you are not being rational in all honesty.

If you want to know somthing about galaxy formation then I suggest you read from a reputable source.

The irony is I am posting a wikipeadia link, however I find that on science issues it is very reliable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy_formation

[RoGuE|SaBeR]

TeePee - As someone who believes the Bible I have absolutely no problem with Evolution being taught in schools in the context that it comes part in parcel with other Theories. It is dangerous to shield children from other points of view because if at a later date they hear of them its discredits the message you were constraining them too. Evolution is an unproven theorey, albiet with plenty of people who support it, and to have it taught as Scientific proof without the possibility for other means of origin is just as bad as Faith Schools shielding them from other scientific theories.

In regards to the 6 Day creation issue. Even within Christian circles there is plenty of debate as to whether it is literal or illustrative but by in large such debate misses the point that God could if he wished create the World in 6 days, such is his Power.

I agree that many of the posts made relating to Bible verses have been a bit obscure, including my own but one thing I would ask is has anyone got any evidense which could Scientifically disprove the Bible?

[G4Z]

Rouge, as the one who has a belief that there is an omnipotent super being, it is upon you to submit the hypothesis and then prove it, not for others to disprove you.

How is it that you know that god exists and he could create the world in 6 days, what evidence is there to convince you of this?

I could say its all down to the flying sphagetti monster and it created everything and I know this because it touched me with its noodly appendage, what makes your god more real than mine?

[G4Z]

Also, you keep saying that Creationism is a valid theory, ok then why dont you give me some observations to support this, a test to disprove it or make some predictions?

These ideas are not equivilent, one is a scientiffic theory accepted as fact, the other is an idea spawned 2000 years ago by people who thought the earth was flat.