The Christian mindset

[Edwardo Piet]

Yes but science progresses scientifically. Science is science. Religion isn't science and it doesn't progress scientifically.

Well, saying that science is science means no more to me than saying religion is religion.

Well obviously lol. I'm obviously not speaking totally literally.
I just mean that ID pretends to be both apart of science and religion. So what I mean by science is science is that I also mean religion is religion. And what I mean by that is the two can't really mix properly. They are incompatible because they are incompatible scientifically. They are only compatible religiously.
So ID is merely a religion pseudoscience that trys to be both science and religion. Or it pretends to be science when its really just religion.
Because like I said, and this goes for the rest of your post too: science and religion are incompatible because they're only compatible religiously, they aren't scientifically compatible therefore any part of ID that's correct scientifically is unrelated to the religious part. The religious parts are only correct to religion and are actually scientifically incorrect themselves.
So religion is unconnected to science because its only connected to science religiously. Not scientifically.

[Daystar]

I just mean that ID pretends to be both apart of science and religion. So what I mean by science is science is that I also mean religion is religion. And what I mean by that is the two can't really mix properly.

I'm glad you responded to this before I turned in for the night, your response reminded me of what I meant to actually say in the first place.

I want to agree with you that they can't really mix properly but I am not so sure. I would reluctantly agree. You may now know me well enough that I don't care at all for religion. Organized religion or religious thought. I certainly have nothing against science in general, but don't see Evolution or most Intelligent Design as science. I see religion and religious thought in pretty much everything man does. It is his nature. A deity or god, even by the Bible's definition, can be anything. Knitting, music, politics, nationalism, education, art, wine, sports, science etc.

Most science minded people see science as producing anything that is good. A geek that dropped out of college didn't invent the Personal Computer in his parents garage Science did!

Religion brought the Crusades but who brought the Atom bomb? Science didn't create all the junk we defile the planet with but rather it is going to fix it! Yeah!

Science can't be wrong until it is seen in hindsight. It is supposed to be theoretical but Evolution is fact.

Tell me though ... anyone ... where does science and the Bible - the Bible, now, not religion - disagree? That is what I forgot to mention in my original tirade.

They are incompatible because they are incompatible scientifically. They are only compatible religiously.

Now that I could agree with. Scientifically because science is every bit as dependant upon interpretation as religion.

What do you, as a science minded individual who values evidence over reason think of (Leviticus 11:4, 6 and Deuteronomy 14:7) which plainly state that the hare chews its cud?

[Edwardo Piet]

I just mean that ID pretends to be both apart of science and religion. So what I mean by science is science is that I also mean religion is religion. And what I mean by that is the two can't really mix properly.

I'm glad you responded to this before I turned in for the night, your response reminded me of what I meant to actually say in the first place.

I want to agree with you that they can't really mix properly but I am not so sure. I would reluctantly agree. You may now know me well enough that I don't care at all for religion. Organized religion or religious thought. I certainly have nothing against science in general, but don't see Evolution or most Intelligent Design as science. I see religion and religious thought in pretty much everything man does. It is his nature. A deity or god, even by the Bible's definition, can be anything. Knitting, music, politics, nationalism, education, art, wine, sports, science etc.

Most science minded people see science as producing anything that is good. A geek that dropped out of college didn't invent the Personal Computer in his parents garage Science did!

Religion brought the Crusades but who brought the Atom bomb? Science didn't create all the junk we defile the planet with but rather it is going to fix it! Yeah!

Science can't be wrong until it is seen in hindsight. It is supposed to be theoretical but Evolution is fact.

Tell me though ... anyone ... where does science and the Bible - the Bible, now, not religion - disagree? That is what I forgot to mention in my original tirade.

They are incompatible because they are incompatible scientifically. They are only compatible religiously.

Now that I could agree with. Scientifically because science is every bit as dependant upon interpretation as religion.

What do you, as a science minded individual who values evidence over reason think of (Leviticus 11:4, 6 and Deuteronomy 14:7) which plainly state that the hare chews its cud?

Well, evolution is a theory, but its a scientific theory. Which is very different from a normal theory. And a scientific fact doesn't mean absolute fact.
A scientific fact is weaker than absolute fact, but only VERY slightly. And a scientific theory is a LOT stronger than just a basic 'theory' as in chain of ideas that at least seemingly fit together, or how ever else you would define the usual use of the word 'theory'.
P.S: What do you mean hare chewing its cud? Is this an expression of some kind? A figure of speech?
If it is I'm not aware of it.
I have heard of many scientific contradictions about the bible but I don't have enough evidence or knowledge to back it up or particularly believe it. I guess I just think that since it contradicts itself so much (in a logical sense) I bet it does contradict science at some point at least.
However, even if science and the bible don't disagree much, they don't seem to agree much either.
Now, I don't think, as far as I know, the bible actually says directly, for example, that the world is 6000 years old, people just add the years of the people in the bible or to get to that conclusion do they? I don't know, I am pretty damn ignorant on bible scripture.
However they get to the 6000 year old conclusion though, I assume based on what you're saying that the bible doesn't actually say that anywhere, thats just a religious interpretation.
But if you believe the bible doesn't contradict itself, then surely thats just because thats just YOUR interpretation.

[Meatball]

Daystar, science is not a religion. It's not being forced down children's throats as dogma.

Science is a method of thinking to gain knowledge. Science is not a religion in the same way that cabinet making is not a religion.

The beauty of science compared to religion is that any "official canon" of a given branch of scientific knowledge can be proven. Given the means, you can prove what is being taught in High School Science class. With religion your only option is to accept it at face value, as that is the nature of faith.

To say that science is being pushed by the state as a religion is laughable.

When you quote 'Expelled' it sends of all sorts of flags that your logic and reasoning aren't up to snuff for legit discussion. It's clearly a deceptive presentation of a weak argument and doesn't deserve the attention it has received.

[Edwardo Piet]

Daystar, science is not a religion. It's not being forced down children's throats as dogma.

Science is a method of thinking to gain knowledge. Science is not a religion in the same way that cabinet making is not a religion.

The beauty of science compared to religion is that any "official canon" of a given branch of scientific knowledge can be proven. Given the means, you can prove what is being taught in High School Science class. With religion your only option is to accept it at face value, as that is the nature of faith.

To say that science is being pushed by the state as a religion is laughable.

When you quote 'Expelled' it sends of all sorts of flags that your logic and reasoning aren't up to snuff for legit discussion. It's clearly a deceptive presentation of a weak argument and doesn't deserve the attention it has received.

Indeed.
I'll also add that because science is a method of thinking, inventions are NOT inclusively science. I mean science as in the scientific method doesn't tell you to use what you've learned with its method - to build an atomic bomb. Thats not science, thats people and invention.
Science is about gaining knowledge and wisdom through the understanding of its method. Its not about inventing really groovy, dangerous or useful things.
Its not about what Dawkins would call non-stick frying pan science for example, its not science as in 'usefulness'.
Science is a method, not inventions to aid consumerism.

[Daystar]

EvidenceVsFaith,

A scientific theory is one that has yet to be disproved? How can you prove that we were created or that we evolved? You can't, so evolution is the best they can come up with because they don't even want to consider creation. When a theory becomes more important than the question the theory attempts to address it is time to reevaluate the science. Science doesn't blindly dismiss a possibility without having to explain it or test it unless there is something corrupting the scientific process. Money, politics.

Chewing the cud is when an animal brings up food from the digestive system and chews it again. Mosaic Law made the distinction between Clean and Unclean animals to eat. The chewers of cud with split or cleft hooves (stag, gazelle, roebuck, antelope, chamois, domestic and wild cattle, sheep and goats) were clean and legal to eat. The unclean were the camel, rock badger and hare of rabbit. (Leviticus 11:1-8, 26 / Deuteronomy 14:4-8)

Most cud chewers have three or four compartments in their stomach and cycle food in a similar pattern. Partially chewed into the first cavity, and from there into the second where it is softened and shaped into round cuds. When the animal stops eating and rests a muscular contraction forces the cuds back into the mouth for rechewing and mixing with saliva. Then it goes through the first and second compartments into the third and fourth to complete the digestion.

In the past there was scientific dispute on the hare as a chewer of cud. Skeptics claimed that the hare didn't chew its cud as the Bible stated. 18th century English poet William Cowper, who observed his domestic rabbits said they "chewed the cud all day till evening." Famed naturalist of the same century, Linnaeus believed that rabbits chewed the cud. The French Morot discovered in 1882 that rabbits reingest up to 90% of their daily intake. Ivan T. Sanderson remarked: "One of the most extraordinary [habits], to our way of thinking, is their method of digestion. This is not unique to Leporids [hares, rabbits] and is now known to occur in many Rodents. When fresh green food, as opposed to desiccated [dried] winter forage, is available, the animals gobble it up voraciously and then excrete it around their home lairs in a semi-digested form. After some time this is then re-eaten, and the process may be repeated more than once. In the Common Rabbit, it appears that only the fully grown adults indulge this practice. - Living Mammals of the World, 1955, p. 114.

British scientist of this century observed that the rabbits' habits (Huh ... I like that; Rabbits Habits) and published their findings in the Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London, 1940, Vol. 110, pp. 159 - 163. I will save you the lengthy details, but suffice it to say, they found that the hare chewed its cud.

Dr. Waldo L. Schmitt, Head Curator, Department of Zoology of the Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C., agrees.

As for what you said regarding the Bible as contradicting itself so much and at the same time saying you know very little about the Bible I have to ask is that evidence or faith? I have a little game I used to play on Atheist message boards - a challenge to anyone to present only one contradiction that I can't refute.

You know that I have never lost this game. Most of the time I can even provide information that the skeptic or atheist themselves are satisfied with as a refutation.

Anyone? Got contradiction?

---

Meatball,

I don't remember having quoted Expelled, I just brought it up. If you watch the movie you will see that respected professors, some with tenure, journalists and scientists are being persecuted not for believing in ID but for just suggesting that there be some fair discussion or referencing some other respected source who was known to believe in ID.

It really is interesting - sort of a revenge of science upon religion which I think is - in some sense - fair, though, like I said turnabout.

[Edwardo Piet]

EvidenceVsFaith,

A scientific theory is one that has yet to be disproved? How can you prove that we were created or that we evolved? You can't, so evolution is the best they can come up with because they don't even want to consider creation. When a theory becomes more important than the question the theory attempts to address it is time to reevaluate the science. Science doesn't blindly dismiss a possibility without having to explain it or test it unless there is something corrupting the scientific process. Money, politics

Yes a scientific theory can't be disproved or even proved as far as we know, absolutely, only scientifically. But there is tons of evidence for the scientific fact of evolution. Ever heard of a thing of probability? If something can be neither proved or disproved that doesn't make it 50/50.

As for what you said regarding the Bible as contradicting itself so much and at the same time saying you know very little about the Bible I have to ask is that evidence or faith? I have a little game I used to play on Atheist message boards - a challenge to anyone to present only one contradiction that I can't refute.

Not a matter of faith a matter of bad memory and memory of sources, I'm not expecting you to have faith in me or believe what I am saying, I am just saying that I have heard many contradictions I just can't remember them right now. I haven't read much of the bible. And what I did read I read years ago.
However, I'll simply say that miracles themselves are huge contradictions, they are totally against science. And God is the biggest miracle of all, so he is the biggest contradiction. If miracles aren't a contradiction then thats just silly. The only way out I can see for you is for you to claim that miracles aren't in the bible or they are "just metaphors". How do you know they are metaphors if that is the case? Who's metaphor? Do you know of the writers? And like I said God is the biggest miracle of all and miracles are ridiculous and false. They go against the laws of the universe.

[Darwinian]

A list of contradictions

Take your pick...

[Edwardo Piet]

Yup and I do actually "Know of" a great many contradictions, I guess I just assume that Daystar will say that they are "incorrect interpretations", maybe he won't, here they are, contradictions: http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_name.html.
And in case you or anyone else is interested, Daystar here are some different interpretations of the bible as well: http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/interp/by_book.html

[Tiberius]

To say that there are no contradictions in the Bible is to ignore most of the Bible. *Everything* has contradictions. It is human nature.