- Very few Christians disagree with that notion- only the very liberal sort who can barely call themselves Christians, having no idea what it's about nor having read the bible on which it is based.

What's that little bit about "no one reaches the father except by me", not to mention constant 1 expression throughout the old testament- including in the 'ten commandments' about accepting YHWH or else…
2-Sure, religious people have the right to be hypocrites. If they don't want to be hypocrites, then if they want to 'correct' their points of views that have already been mandated in a 'perfect divinely inspired' book, then they need to admit that that book is pretty much useless as a source of any facts.

It's a fiction. We can take moral lessons from fiction- that's fine- but until people admit that it is a work of fiction and not of their god, they have no honest basis to go about changing things on a whim3
Science accepts itself as self-correcting. Science is not based on 'revealed' truth, but reasoned truth, meaning things can be updated and improved, and as such, has nothing to do with religion.



Religion is inherently conservative- it relies on it.
what you say about this help me

Galveston1

What notion are you asking about?

Donna Mae

I'm not understanding what the question is.

snowgirl

claims that science should stay out "of philosophy, origins, and religion." when it helps with origins, it can explain a lot of stuff that the bible is totally wrong on

god's word is always changing as there's a lot that people don't follow any more?

snowgirl

are there any god?

Donna Mae

God is real and His word never changes, it is people that change God's word to suit theirselves.

Fr_Chuck

Gods word does not change, Gods covenant or agreements with man do at times. Orginally man had to come to God only though the sacrifice of animals or earthly things as a way to cleanse thier sins, they had ritual baths to clean. This was a start for the comming of Christ to be the final sacrifice. So no the rules have not changed, only the type of sacrifice required changed from animals to God's son.

And religion may at time laugh at science as it stumbles to find early knowledge but he has nothing against science since most science only proves the bible true.

snowgirl

No, I have logical proofs that such a god does not exist. It only applies to certain definitions, but it covers every significant historical and common English definition- that god does not exist

Credendovidis

... "no one reaches the father except by me"... is claimed to have been stated by Jesus, and indeed makes little logical sense if it is related to the Trinity claim that Jesus, God, and the Holy Spirit are one. Because than it actually says that "no one reaches me except by me".

As to the rest of your topic post : people should be free to believe whatever they prefer to believe, whether you agree with their belief or not.
Because you also like to be free to believe whatever you prefer to believe.
(Remember : do not to others, what you do not like others to do to you).

In principle science is indeed self-correcting. In reality that self-correction can be improved upon, as scientists are also human beings with ego problems, specific interests, and prone to make mistakes. But that principle itself is correct !

Real science is only partly based on reasoned truth (what is truth?) , but mainly on objective supported evidence.
Therefore it is totally incompatible with anything related to religion, as that is based on belief and faith.
A point supporters of "Creationism" and "Intelligent Design" seem unable to understand.

May I ask you why you are attacking religious views here on this Christianity board?
A better location for opposing views is the Religious Discussion board.

John
Secular Humanist Freethinker

inthebox

Cred:

Logically exlpain to me, prove to me INTELLIGENTLY, how DNA , RNA came about?
How did DNA become coordinated with ribosomes and amino acids to form proteins.?

How the vision or hearing or echo location or the clotting / fibrinolysis cascade come about?

What specific genetic mutations caused humans to diverge from apes?

How do you explain that for 2 billion years of only single cells.

How do you explain the Cambrian "big bang"

If eukaryotes took prokaryotes to be their own mitochodria [ has this ever been observed or replicated in a lab ] why did they not incorporate photosynthesis also? The best fit for survival. You can make atp 2 different ways rather than one.
Think about it, plants take co2 water and sunlight to make oxygen and carbohydrates. Oxygen at high concentrations is toxic. We and animals take o2 and cabohydrates for energy and the byproducts are also co2 and water. A balance. Now which came first?

How did random chance time and natural selection lead to this - again reproduce this in a lab. Oh wait in order to do lab experiments the scientists have to be INTELLIGENT


You will understand science reporting about evolution these days when you memorize the Darwin Party M.O. A review.
• Step 1: Assume evolution.
• Step 2: Observe a fact.
• Step 3: Make up a story to show how the fact might fit in with the assumption of evolution.


Don't worry if you'll be scratching your head for a long time.
These scientists are doing the same thing.


Scoop: Mazur: Altenberg! The Woodstock of Evolution?

"Well there's 25,000 genes, so each could be on or off. So there's 2 x 2 x 2 x 25,000 times. Well that's 2 to the 25,000th. Right? Which is something like 10 to the 7,000th. Okay? There's only 10 to the 80th particles in the whole universe. ARE YOU STUNNED?"


"Oh sure natural selection's been demonstrated. . . the interesting point, however, is that it has rarely if ever been demonstrated to have anything to do with evolution in the sense of long-term changes in populations. . . . Summing up we can see that the import of the Darwinian theory of evolution is just unexplainable caprice from top to bottom. What evolves is JUST WHAT HAPPENED TO HAPPEN."




"Pigliucci cites epigenetic inheritance as one of the mechanisms that Darwin knew nothing about. He says there is mounting empirical evidence to "suspect" there's a whole additional layer chemically on top of the genes that is inherited but is not DNA. Darwin, of course, did not even know of the existence of DNA"



-----Evolution cannot explain DNA and yet these scientists think there is something more complex than just genes involved?! ------