Originally Posted by unkerpaulie

change is merely a rearrangement of existing elements. a tree growing from a seedling is simply an accumulation of already existing molecules and nutrients and energy transfered from other sources. a tree that is burnt is merely a redistribution of existing matter and energy into the ground or atmosphere. nothing as been added, removed, created or destroyed. everything that you started with is exactly what you end with, and nothing more or less

My apologies for a short answer, but I can't allocate time to properly respond to this right now. You are incorrect here. I will expand later.

What you end up with is quite different from what you started with. It is the total amount of energy that remains constant. I'm not saying that you can't end up with some element that was there in the beginning, but burning wood undergoes chemical changes and gives off oxidized materials.

order and chaos are subjective terms. and people see the same occurence and call it order and chaos. the fact is, all events are neutral, and only our perspectives add relative values to them

Tell that the tsunami victims.

there is a massive hurricane on the surface of jupiter that has lasted for centuries. is that order or chaos? the surface of venus is layered with hot toxic gases and acidic thunderstorms. is that order or chaos? it is all neutral

Then maybe you should refine your basis of concern. If you consider only things happening outside of our planet, you may be right about the order/chaos thing.

creation, for all practical purposes, is eliminated in the eyes of science
- there was no 6 day plant furnishing
- there was no instantaneously created humans or animals
- there were no talking serpents or flame-sword weilding angels, and no tree of life

whatever we have left is a far cry from biblical creation

Creation as has been traditionally defined is subject to correction in view of scientific discoveries. The moving force and the slow creation of today's life on earth has not been explained enough to preclude a Creator. The misconceptions we have lived with for ages are mainly related to timing and methods. Science has not eliminated creation.

I agree with you regarding the 6 days and the instantly developed life forms. You'll have a hard time proving that miracles have not happened.

Originally Posted by jim's trucking

My apologies for a short answer, but I can't allocate time to properly respond to this right now. You are incorrect here. I will expand later.

What you end up with is quite different from what you started with. It is the total amount of energy that remains constant. I'm not saying that you can't end up with some element that was there in the beginning, but burning wood undergoes chemical changes and gives off oxidized materials.

nothing is ADDED or REMOVED, only a REARRANGEMENT of existing matter and energy. its like taking 3 blocks arranged as a triangle and restacking them as a tower. your argument is that the triangle has been destroyed and the tower has been created. my argument is that you started off with 3 blocks and ended up with 3 blocks. both statements are correct. no real need to argue

Originally Posted by jim's trucking

Tell that the tsunami victims.

Then maybe you should refine your basis of concern. If you consider only things happening outside of our planet, you may be right about the order/chaos thing.

thats my point. chaos and order is relative only to human perspective, which is objective to begin with. on a planet identical to ours, except without humans, then a massive plate collasping and forming a sweeping tsunami that devastates islands would simply be a neutral occurence of nature, without any good or evil or order or chaos attached to it. only when human perspective is impacted, do these terms get assigned. events are not inherently orderly or chaotic, just neutral

Originally Posted by jim's trucking

The sum total of energy in the universe remains constant.

The question "Religion or Science?" appears to preclude "both" as an answer. However, "both" is my answer.

I see science as shooting holes in some of the literality of the Bible. That does not mean that the entire Bible is incorrect. It means only that those who told us about the origins of things in the Bible may have been wrong. Maybe it took a lot more than 7 days, but it was just easier to explain if broken into days. The authors of the day had no access to carbon dating and such scientific tools as we do.

I think the problem with many religions today is that they cling to the "literality" of the Bible by faith and reject the knowledge that science has uncovered. But consider civilization as it was when the Book of Genesis was written. They did not have the knowledge we have today to explain the nature of the universe. They tried of explain it to themselve in terms they could comprehend. What they could not comprehend, they contributed to the supernatural: "God".

Take the concept of "time". I believe for them, their basic measurement was a "day", from one sunrise to the next. I don't think they have any concept of a "second" or a "minute" or an "hour" as we do today. These divisions of time into 24 hours in a day, 60 minutes to an hour, and 60 seconds to a minute were an arbitrary system later developed by man himself when he had a more accurate means of measuring time (the sundial, hour glass. marks on a burning candle). A year was measured by the passing of the four seasons, not by the time it took the earth to make one orbit around the sun. I don't think they could even begin to grasp the idea of millions of years. It was simply beyond their ability and knowledge.

On the whole, I do not think the Bible is a bad book, if it is accepted as nothing more than a history of life and customs of those times in which it was written. It teaches many good concepts on how mankind should conduct themselves in their dealings with other men (and women). Aesop's (spelling?) fables do a similar service in their morals taught by their imaginary tales.

I think the failing of the religions which are based on the roots in the Old Testement (Islam, Judism, Christianity) lies in their befief in the Bible as the immutable work of a supernatural power and their unwillingness to accept the body of knowledge now known within a reasonable framework for their religion. Evolution versus creationism is an example of this. I would personally find it much more realistic if they accepted evolution as a natural order guided by whatever intelligent force created order within the universe.

I also find it extremely disturbing that so many of the traditional religions unbendingly profess to believe in the literality of the Bible and claim that they in no way interpret it, are in fact, the biggest hypocrits of all. They pick and chose from the Bible like an ala carte menu; which scriptures they wish to apply under what circumstances. From a book that, at it's root, teaches humility, tolerance, and love, they arrogantly preach intolerance and hatred. When challanged on the points of their hypocracy based on their supposed literal belief of the Bible, they respond with: "But that's not what it means", and then, with a straight face, deny that they in any way interpret the Bible. Any attempt at debate with them is futile. In their minds, they are right and you are wrong. QED. Period. End of dabate.

Many, many scientist are deeply religious individuals. They stand in awe at the complexity of the universe in all it's order, chaos, and grandeur. It is truly a disgrace to mankind that traditional religions are unwilling to evolve themselves to incorporate the realities it presents.

In summary, jim, I believe it is possible to incorporate both.

Originally Posted by wsm2506

...
Many, many scientist are deeply religious individuals. They stand in awe at the complexity of the universe in all it's order, chaos, and grandeur. It is truly a disgrace to mankind that traditional religions are unwilling to evolve themselves to incorporate the realities it presents.

That's why Galleleo got a grief bag from the Church. Thank God, they didn't put him to death.

Originally Posted by unkerpaulie

nothing is ADDED or REMOVED, only a REARRANGEMENT of existing matter and energy. its like taking 3 blocks arranged as a triangle and restacking them as a tower. your argument is that the triangle has been destroyed and the tower has been created. my argument is that you started off with 3 blocks and ended up with 3 blocks. both statements are correct. no real need to argue

By your argument, nothing can be created. There's no need for that word.

Have your ever used one of those plastic bags that can be crushed to give off heat or light? The chemical reaction that produces the heat changes the chemical composition of the materials and releases heat...heat that likely will never find its way back to its original place. The byproducts of the reaction remain in the bag. They were created by the reaction.

Changes such as moving molecules around to form different tissues and substances are what creation is all about. The slow process by which changes come about in species of plants of animals is what evolution is all about.

thats my point. chaos and order is relative only to human perspective, which is objective to begin with. on a planet identical to ours, except without humans, then a massive plate collasping and forming a sweeping tsunami that devastates islands would simply be a neutral occurence of nature, without any good or evil or order or chaos attached to it. only when human perspective is impacted, do these terms get assigned. events are not inherently orderly or chaotic, just neutral

I don't know that "neutral" is a good word to describe what I think you are trying to say. It sort of implies "coasting along with no change in speed or function". When a supernova is "created" by a dying star, it's not what I would call neutral.

You're right about the attachment of the human element though. Then again, why talk about something as being "neutral" just because it didn't physically affect people on earth.

Originally Posted by jim's trucking

By your argument, nothing can be created. There's no need for that word.

Have your ever used one of those plastic bags that can be crushed to give off heat or light? The chemical reaction that produces the heat changes the chemical composition of the materials and releases heat...heat that likely will never find its way back to its original place. The byproducts of the reaction remain in the bag. They were created by the reaction.

Changes such as moving molecules around to form different tissues and substances are what creation is all about. The slow process by which changes come about in species of plants of animals is what evolution is all about.

again, i said nothing is ADDED or REMOVED, only REARRANGED. this is what you are saying as well

Originally Posted by jim's trucking

I don't know that "neutral" is a good word to describe what I think you are trying to say. It sort of implies "coasting along with no change in speed or function". When a supernova is "created" by a dying star, it's not what I would call neutral.

You're right about the attachment of the human element though. Then again, why talk about something as being "neutral" just because it didn't physically affect people on earth.

neutral, as opposed to "good" or "bad", or as we originally stated, orderly or chaotic. everything can be both orderly and chaotic, depending on who you ask. is a supernova orderly or chaotic? if it is neither, then it is neutral

I believin the theory of scientific domination.
If science is the new religion why do people still believin religion?
The people who are associated with these category differ like night and day. Science leaves ideas open for change and the minds that follow science are open minded and subject to change. Religion is followed by those who don't want to change. They grew up going to church and listening to the preacher and to admit the inconsistencies of religion is to change the fabric of their belief system.

I believe science because it insists on a open mind subject for change. Those who refuse change fail to adapt to a changing world and will tend to be eliminated over time.

How many Puritans to do talk to in a typical day?

Originally Posted by wsm2506

I think the problem with many religions today is that they cling to the "literality" of the Bible by faith and reject the knowledge that science has uncovered. But consider civilization as it was when the Book of Genesis was written. They did not have the knowledge we have today to explain the nature of the universe. They tried of explain it to themselve in terms they could comprehend. What they could not comprehend, they contributed to the supernatural: "God".

and because science has discovered the logical and natural explanations for the phenomenon man once considered "supernatural", we know that it was not "God", but a natural phenomenon. there is possibly no physically observable phenomenon that science cannot provide a reasonable explanation for. nothing is supernatural. nothing is an "act of God"

Originally Posted by wsm

On the whole, I do not think the Bible is a bad book, if it is accepted as nothing more than a history of life and customs of those times in which it was written. It teaches many good concepts on how mankind should conduct themselves in their dealings with other men (and women). Aesop's (spelling?) fables do a similar service in their morals taught by their imaginary tales.

and like you said, the problem begins when we start taking the content of the bible as a literal recording of events, or a practical tool for how we should live today. the lessons in themselves are fine, but dont expect the events around the stories to have any basis in fact.

Originally Posted by wsm

I think the failing of the religions which are based on the roots in the Old Testement (Islam, Judism, Christianity) lies in their befief in the Bible as the immutable work of a supernatural power and their unwillingness to accept the body of knowledge now known within a reasonable framework for their religion. Evolution versus creationism is an example of this. I would personally find it much more realistic if they accepted evolution as a natural order guided by whatever intelligent force created order within the universe.

remember, there is no such thing as "evidence" of chaos or order. these attributes are relative, and only attached to events through people's objective views. not only that, but if you sum all the views of "order" in the world, and compare it to sum of all the views of "chaos", i think you'll get a surprising balanced result (my opinion. of course)

Originally Posted by wsm

Many, many scientist are deeply religious individuals. They stand in awe at the complexity of the universe in all it's order, chaos, and grandeur. It is truly a disgrace to mankind that traditional religions are unwilling to evolve themselves to incorporate the realities it presents.

In summary, jim, I believe it is possible to incorporate both.

i think the introduction of science completely substitutes God as a reason why things exist and occur. there is now nothing to give God credit for.

should we believe, on a foundational level, that God can influence the physical world when science says otherwise?

Originally Posted by unkerpaulie

remember, there is no such thing as "evidence" of chaos or order. these attributes are relative, and only attached to events through people's objective views. not only that, but if you sum all the views of "order" in the world, and compare it to sum of all the views of "chaos", i think you'll get a surprising balanced result (my opinion. of course)

No offense intended, but as in your other arguments on other issues, you seem to have an issue with what constitutes "evidence" or not. Be that as it may, it is your opinion and you are entitled to it. I will maintain my opinion.

Originally Posted by unkerpaulie

i think the introduction of science completely substitutes God as a reason why things exist and occur. there is now nothing to give God credit for.

should we believe, on a foundational level, that God can influence the physical world when science says otherwise?

In my opinion expressed in the passage which you refer to, I intentionally refrained from the use of the word "god".

Originally Posted by wsm2506

In my opinion expressed in the passage which you refer to, I intentionally refrained from the use of the word "god".

Originally Posted by wsm2506

In summary, jim, I believe it is possible to incorporate both.

so how is it that we can incorporate both religion and science, when "God" is not even in the equation?

Originally Posted by unkerpaulie

so how is it that we can incorporate both religion and science, when "God" is not even in the equation?

I did not use the word "God" or "god" because of the traditional / classical interpretation of the word(s) as refering to a supernatural or mythical being. I personally don't believe it is necessarily a requirement for a religion to incorporate such a concept.

To me, again personally, any "religion" is based on beliefs and / or faith. If I say that my beliefs and faith are based on scientific explanation of the universe, current and or future, then in that respect, I suppose some could say that "science" is my "religion". It does not include worship or tribute to any traditional / classical concept of "god".

Originally Posted by wsm2506

I did not use the word "God" or "god" because of the traditional / classical interpretation of the word(s) as refering to a supernatural or mythical being. I personally don't believe it is necessarily a requirement for a religion to incorporate such a concept.

To me, again personally, any "religion" is based on beliefs and / or faith. If I say that my beliefs and faith are based on scientific explanation of the universe, current and or future, then in that respect, I suppose some could say that "science" is my "religion". It does not include worship or tribute to any traditional / classical concept of "god".

i see.

the christian religion, however, holds the existence of God as quintessential. my opinion is that science invalidates God-based religions, and all religions based on the belief in supernatural phenomenon. if that is true, then they both cannot be accepted

Originally Posted by unkerpaulie

i see.

the christian religion, however, holds the existence of God as quintessential. my opinion is that science invalidates God-based religions, and all religions based on the belief in supernatural phenomenon. if that is true, then they both cannot be accepted

As I said, those are my personal beliefs and faiths, call them a religion or whatever. I do not expect anyone else to necessarily accept or agree with my personal beliefs. Neither do I care to evangelized my beliefs upon others. I only meant it only as an explanation of what I believe.

Originally Posted by unkerpaulie

i see.

the christian religion, however, holds the existence of God as quintessential. my opinion is that science invalidates God-based religions, and all religions based on the belief in supernatural phenomenon. if that is true, then they both cannot be accepted

Just how does science invalidate a belief in God?