Kinsa jud imo gituohan kung diin jud tah gikan, ang Bible or Science?

[necrotic freak]

---

Pagkataas na ani nga thread. Personally, I believe in God and what the Bible says. But I also know that my spiritual beliefs can well be strengthened with "Science". Faith and Science can work together to give meaning to the realities we see and experience. But, there are realities that the tools of Science can't just fathom, reach, and most of all, cannot ignore. Thus, the ultimate arbiter, for me and I guess, for those who believe, for such realities, is Faith. Even the Wisdom and Intellect of Man are beautiful creations of God. Something must have gone wrong when men become too proud of their wisdom and intellectual capacities, and obstinate as to throw God out of their consciousness and awareness.

mao na diha...

OT: sama gud ni noynoy subra ka proud dili na motuo ug CJ.

[kenites]

I don't think mahuman ni nga debate
Separate Science and Religion..

If you want truth backed by evidence/fact then adto sa science..dili ni siya territory sa religion
although dili kaya tubagon sa science tanan ato question labaw na kadto mga absolute
pero science is humble enough to say "we don't know", it is a continuing search for knowledge

If you want answer based on faith then adto sa religion
Faith is believing without reason/evidence...and that is beyond the territory of science nah

[masterjanuarius]

@ OT. Faith needs science to explain the perceived realities and even affirm the experienced realties. Science needs Faith to illumine the perceived "truths" and even, enlighten the in-explainable realities of the Universe. But both though, need humility to accept each others' limits and fields.

[hitch22]

well said bro. thanks for sharing your brilliant thoughts...
and i agree... the Bible should never be taken literally (e.g. the day in the creation isn't necessarily equal to our normal 24-hour day)...

the Bible is a "complete" guide for our salvation... if im not mistaken... it's in Isaiah 34:16...

thanks...

Thanks for the compliment. However, I have to be honest with you. If you've read all my posts on this thread, you'll see we have some fundamental differences with regard to the issue of science versus religion as the one with the better explanation for our origins. I lean more toward the former.

Like I said, it's true that science doesn't have THE ANSWER to the origins of the universe and of life. I'm talking about THE ANSWER in the absolute sense. But that doesn't mean that science doesn't explain anything or doesn't have a clue about how we got here. It does. It's just not a completed picture yet. You have to view this whole process as a construction (perhaps one that may not be completed). We're not there yet, but we're inching our way closer and closer, building on top of one theory after another...get what I mean?

I'm sorry to have to disagree with you on the claim that the Theory of Evolution is false. On the contrary, the mainstream scientific community have already gone beyond accepting evolution...the theory has already attained fact-hood. The evidence is just overwhelming, especially after we had completely sequenced the human genome in the first decade of the millenium. I have to be truly closed-minded to see all the evidence and not be convinced that evolution occurred. The debate we see in the mainstream evolutionary biology these days is not whether evolution occurred but how it occurred. For example, did Evolution occur in small, gradual steps over billions of years, as Darwin proposed, or did it occur in spurts and stops, as proposed in Punctuated Equilibrium. We even have Roman Catholics like Fr. George Coyne (former director of the Vatican Observatory) and Ken Miller defending Darwin's Theory of Evolution against the assault from creationism (disguised as Intelligent Design).

Here's a Youtube video showing Ken Miller explaining Human Evolution: Roman Catholic Ken Miller - Human Evolution Proof!

[robert_papalid_ece]

I don't think mahuman ni nga debate
Separate Science and Religion..

If you want truth backed by evidence/fact then adto sa science..dili ni siya territory sa religion
although dili kaya tubagon sa science tanan ato question labaw na kadto mga absolute
pero science is humble enough to say "we don't know", it is a continuing search for knowledge

If you want answer based on faith then adto sa religion
Faith is believing without reason/evidence...and that is beyond the territory of science nah

hi kenites... it's you again... hehe...

Faith ISN'T believing without evidence/reason... lain ra sad kaayo na paminawon oi...
I believe that "logic" is good enough evidence/reason of faith... the logic that we can't be called "creatures" if there is nobody Who created us... that the universe just happened by chance/accident (Big Bang)... and nobody created this more than perfect design...

but thanks kenites for the respectful posts/comments... i agree with your older post... that we have our own beliefs...

and i would say... that's one of the good things of being human... and not just an ordinary animal...

[hitch22]

Something must have gone wrong when men become too proud of their wisdom and intellectual capacities, and obstinate as to throw God out of their consciousness and awareness.

That is not the point of science. Like what kenites and I have stated previously, to borrow the late, great biologist Steven J. Gould's phrase, science and religion are "non-overlapping magisteria". When religion steps over to the scientific domain, it gets itself into trouble. Scientists too would get themselves into trouble if they start formulating philosophies of life and morals. The reason why the question on origins is often disputed between science and religion is exactly because this is a question where the line between religion and science is blurred. I think the way to settle this is, we leave to matters of faith the existence of the First Cause and we leave matters of how the universe began and how we got here to science.

You have to understand that science is not arrogant. It relies on a strict, impersonal method (what we call the scientific method) to arrive at conclusions objectively. Objective...because it will accept facts that may not be pleasant to us and because it knows that human beings have the tendency to accept only what we desire to be true. It's also humble in knowing that the theory that's accepted today will continue to evolve as new evidence comes in or as new technology uncover more facts.

So, when the stakes are high-- as in the answer to the origins of the universe and of life -- any claim or assertion must require more evidence, more stringent scientific tests and scrutiny, and strict peer reviews. It's this amount of care and respect for truth which I like about science, that I prefer its methods and findings concerning our origins. The Biblical account of creation, on the other hand, is not supposed to be scientific reference material where you can decode the explanation of our origins, and neither should it be used as scientific basis. Trust me, you'll never hear of a proponent of the Intelligent Design Theory winning the Nobel Prize.

[ayki]

BOTH. they don't have to be mutually exclusive..
we never know.. science might serve as a proof that there is a GOD

[robert_papalid_ece]

Thanks for the compliment. However, I have to be honest with you. If you've read all my posts on this thread, you'll see we have some fundamental differences with regard to the issue of science versus religion as the one with the better explanation for our origins. I lean more toward the former.

Like I said, it's true that science doesn't have THE ANSWER to the origins of the universe and of life. I'm talking about THE ANSWER in the absolute sense. But that doesn't mean that science doesn't explain anything or doesn't have a clue about how we got here. It does. It's just not a completed picture yet. You have to view this whole process as a construction (perhaps one that may not be completed). We're not there yet, but we're inching our way closer and closer, building on top of one theory after another...get what I mean?

I'm sorry to have to disagree with you on the claim that the Theory of Evolution is false. On the contrary, the mainstream scientific community have already gone beyond accepting evolution...the theory has already attained fact-hood. The evidence is just overwhelming, especially after we had completely sequenced the human genome in the first decade of the millenium. I have to be truly closed-minded to see all the evidence and not be convinced that evolution occurred. The debate we see in the mainstream evolutionary biology these days is not whether evolution occurred but how it occurred. For example, did Evolution occur in small, gradual steps over billions of years, as Darwin proposed, or did it occur in spurts and stops, as proposed in Punctuated Equilibrium. We even have Roman Catholics like Fr. George Coyne (former director of the Vatican Observatory) and Ken Miller defending Darwin's Theory of Evolution against the assault from creationism (disguised as Intelligent Design).

Here's a Youtube video showing Ken Miller explaining Human Evolution: Roman Catholic Ken Miller - Human Evolution Proof!

thanks bro for providing us the technical information regarding evolution... my nose bled a little while reading it...

but i disagree that the Bible does not tell us the answer on the origin of life... it was mentioned that we are descendants of Adam and Eve... and i believe in that... and for me... that is the absolute answer...

if you believe in evolution... it is an indirect way of not believing in God... coz with evolution... humans are just descendants from ape-like creatures... and were not created by God...

humans having gene "similarities" to apes/chimpanzees... for me... is not a good evidence of evolution... them being "similar" just indicate that they have the same "designer"... and you know who He is...

also, it doesnt matter if somebody from the Catholic Church is supporting evolution... everybody is given their free will... and that again is another thing that makes us humans... and that's a blessing... we should be thankful for it...

Einstein... whose ideas are used by scientists to explain the origin of the universe... is a believer of God... and i bet... he believes in the concept of creation...

[remz399]

thanks sa mga reply bro's..

anyway mas maayo cguro kung ang science mo push thru sa ilang belief nga gikan jud tah sa Big bang Theory. .

di man cguro bati kung mu defend pud ang church kung ma Law na ang Big Bang diba.?

its their obligation nga mo defend kay unsa.on nlng kung mwala na ang faith sa mga tao. .

but the real thing der is that for me their is GOD jud and he rely Exist in my heart and soul. .

hihih. . .

[kenites]

hi kenites... it's you again... hehe...

Faith ISN'T believing without evidence/reason... lain ra sad kaayo na paminawon oi...
I believe that "logic" is good enough evidence/reason of faith... the logic that we can't be called "creatures" if there is nobody Who created us... that the universe just happened by chance/accident (Big Bang)... and nobody created this more than perfect design...

but thanks kenites for the respectful posts/comments... i agree with your older post... that we have our own beliefs...

and i would say... that's one of the good things of being human... and not just an ordinary animal...

Yap ako na pud bai Robert
bibo naman pud dre..apil2x lang ko
sharing2x lang ta sa ato mga idea ba

Bro murag magbalik2x ra jud ato mga argument dre no
I think hitch22 post earlier has the best answer na ani...just checked his Non sequitur argument
One thing pud diay bro, the design is not perfect..
The Universe, for all its beauty and grandeur, is also full of nasties pud...

sometimes pud ra ba mas naa pay respeto ang ordinary animals kaysa tao