What's your Religion?

Actually his design was ignored by Satan, Adam and Eve and many of their offspring. A designer and builder is not responsible if his creation is misused. A truck can be a valuable tool when used properly or a deadly projectile if misused. No one would sue Toyota if someone decided to use the truck for an illegal purpose or one for which it was not designed. God's purpose was for perfect mankind to inhabit the earth not to rebel and pollute it. Again, he is waiting for it to be proven beyond a doubt that man cannot rule himself and is in need of God's direction so that this issue will once and for all time be settled.

 

Respectfully, that is faulty reasoning. If five people are in a room and are asked what is 2+2 and only one person says 4 and all insist the other is wrong, does not make 4 the wrong answer.

 

As the creator of the universe, I firmly believe that he has the power to affect what ever change he sees fit. No steering involved.

 

Physical pollution is only a minor part of ruining the earth. The flood account of the Bible indicates that it was the violence that had "ruined the earth", so it is more so the actions of man that will be addressed.

As to when, I cannot say the day and time, but Jesus said that we would know it was close by the events occurring around us. By that indication, I feel that we are very close.

 

Skip with the truck comparison please.

What were Adam and Eve polluting with?

Beyond a doubt?, it's gonna have to get pretty bad, and this god knows already that man can't rule. He knew this before he created them.

 

And you aren't the first to believe that, that prediction was around before jesus.

 

I hope memebers keep things civil, docbrown is doing a fine job explaining his beliefs, I find it very interesting and don't want him to abandon the thread as he keep getting attacked.

 

I think you just called me uncivil, back off.

 

I hope I came across as lightly as I felt. I jsut have to give the man some respect as he is getting hit from several people, yet he is sharing some very personal and serious beliefs and being patient and articulate. He is the one answering questions while others pick him apart and control the flow of the thread. Most of the time people start having fits at this point. I think it is pretty cool what he has shared thus far..

 

I agree docbrown is doing a good job articulating his beliefs, peculiar as they seem.

 

I can prove 2+2=4. I can show it with simple rocks. You can't prove anything from the bible. That's the problem. Higher math like quantum mechanics.... eh, I don't understand them, so I don't claim to believe in them (since I don't know any of the theories or what they claim), but that's a different story.

 

From what I understand, the Bible doesn't have to prove anything, and just because you don't understand and believe quantum mech. (or religious faith), that doesn't make it wrong.

 

Keep in mind, neither of us said we believe in ALL science, nor ALL scientific theories.

I, myself, believe more in science in general and as a general means of explaining things over a book written 1,000's of years ago, and translated as many times by people with their own agendas guiding the translations.

Also, most science to me is an interesting story, idea, concept, etc until someone shows proof it actually exists/works/happens. Do a demonstration, prove the theory is right, or give enough evidence that "x" is probably the way it happened and I'll go along with that. Notice that nowhere above did I mention the only evidence being 1 book or it's revisions. One piece of evidence is not enough. Thus the scientific method of being able to repeat a process and duplicate the results before announcing it. What can be repeated and duplicated from the bible?

 

You're right, it doesn't have to prove anything. Just as I don't have to believe it, or it's lack of proof.

 

Umm, Science has it's own issues too. Let's look at your Scientific Method.

1. Define the question
2. Gather information and resources
3. Form hypothesis
4. Perfrom experiment and collect data
5. Analyze data
6. Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis
7. Publish results
8. Retest

Now, take a hard look at number 4 and tell me Science has the answers to making anything, let alone the universe, out of zero energy. I would like them to make me a few solid gold bars if they could, the way it is gaining value lately.

The Scientific Method will continue to go back to hypothesis, or number 3, unless they want to be hypocritical and not use there own system of "proof".

 

Science certainly has it's own agenda and translations too. Theory wars abound about almost everything.

 

As opposed to what? Believing it "just happened" based on a story in a book with no explanation or theories that can be tested and verified now? Like all of humanity coming from Adam and Eve. Is that how it goes? I find it impossible to believe that all the variations in the human population sprang from 2 sets of genes. The inbreeding alone surely would have killed us off long ago.

Which is why they're put forth as theories and not gospel. They are ideas, which can be proven wrong or updated after more evidence has been found, or better technology developed. (Case in point, DNA evidence freeing innocent people convicted before DNA testing was developed. Perhaps you'd rather live in a society were wrongly accused people were executed while the guilty parties roamed free because scientific theories didn't improve over time?) Religion is passed off as a belief. This is how it is. There's no room for thinking or changing after a better understanding was found.

 

You not believing is your perogative, as it is mine as well. We actually share similiar thoughts. However, the religious person has there perogative as well, and we do not have the Faith they do. We can't understand it, but it certainnly doesn't mean it is wrong. Who are we to decide?

Your case in point is very poor. Science has done a lot of wonderful things for civilization, you could go on ad naseum about it, but also some very bad things. There is a place for Science, and I am grateful for it. Those people wrongly convicted may have found religion while locked up, it gave them meaning and hope, it changed their lives forever after evidence freed them. They may have obtained something I don't have, "Faith" and they don't need to explain or proove the richness it has given them. Is there not value in that as rediculous as it may seem to you?

Bottome line, no one can really proove anything, everything has it's place. No one is right or wrong here.

 

What inconsistencies in science are you referring to? Scientists develop hypotheses and test them, then publish their results. If these results can be repeated consistently, then we have the makings of a theory. That theory will stand until evidence is found to disprove it. Once it is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, or mathematically, we have a law. So yes, the theories that scientists once had, do become obsolete as science and technology advance. Some call that inconsistency, I call it progress.