Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

If there were a religion what was actually 100% true...

...then don't you think there would be no conflict between science and religion? Wouldn't there just not even BE religion, because the two terms would be interchangeable?

If the bible, for example, were true (not picking on Christians, but using it as an example because I know the stories in it). If it really was dictated by God fully (assuming there is a God), then science would be stumbling upon answers that are in the bible when they do experiments instead of answers that contradict it...right? Science looks for explanations to things. If the bible explanations were true, wouldn't science prove that? They would be carbon-dating fish fossils found on land and finding that they match up to the time of Noah's flood instead of millions of years ago, right? But they're not. So how do you explain this? Are all scientists part of a conspiracy? cont....

 
metalcowgirl34

Asked by metalcowgirl34 at 12:50 PM on Jun. 7, 2009 in Religion & Beliefs

Level 12 (864 Credits)
This question is closed.
Answers (25)
  • There are people who think that archaeology and sceince have proven the Bible, but I've yet to see them find proof of The Garden of Eden, Christ's Tomb, the Ark of the Covenant, Jesus's miracles, that someone can be swallowed by a fish and survive for days unharmed, that snakes can talk, people can rise from the dead, heaven and hell or any form of an afterlife.

    Sure, the Bible is full of historical facts that can be verified by other ancient writings, but the basis of their beliefs are nothing but conjecture and myths.
    IhartU

    Answer by IhartU at 12:57 PM on Jun. 7, 2009

  • Why do people assume that scientists, some infinitely smarter than us, are wrong just because we don't understand the complexity of their thinking?
    metalcowgirl34

    Answer by metalcowgirl34 at 12:51 PM on Jun. 7, 2009

  • Science can't prove or explain everything either, so where does that leave us?
    misses_nick

    Answer by misses_nick at 1:00 PM on Jun. 7, 2009

  • I love your question. But I might write too much in response (bear with me or skip over my replies, lol). Okay first I don't assume that scientists are wrong, they are very smart, and they know a lot more than I do. But at the same time they don't agree with each other. And there are many many many very very very smart scientists that are professors at major universities that do not believe in evolution either. Have you ever checked out the Dissent from Darwin list?


    MCC, you do realize that it would take an essay to answer this question, right? : )


    I will continue . . .

    Cinnamon-mom

    Answer by Cinnamon-mom at 1:04 PM on Jun. 7, 2009

  • misses nick.....no, it can't, YET. That is only because of the limitations of the human mind. There's no reason to believe that just because we haven't explained something YET, that it can't ever be explained. More and more things are explained all the time which were thought unexplainable at one time. Why would that ever stop?
    metalcowgirl34

    Answer by metalcowgirl34 at 1:05 PM on Jun. 7, 2009

  • I love science and I feel like it does prove the existence of God. The more we learn about things the more mysteries we find. We don't figure out anything except that things are even more complex than we ever even imagined!!!

    I don't think that science contradicts the Bible, I think that scientists do. When you and I look at something we see it differently right? Well scientists are the same way. The whole point of the theory of evolution was at first to figure out how it could have happened IF there was no God. So the basis of the idea is not based on what they found, but on the premise of "NO GOD." And they have to believe the the earth is that old because it makes the theory more believable. I do not believe in the dating system they use that measures the release of radiation, because the rocks also leak Uranium (I need to look up my source). But the uranium leaks at a different rate and it contradicts the age of . .
    Cinnamon-mom

    Answer by Cinnamon-mom at 1:12 PM on Jun. 7, 2009

  • Persephone and the Pomegranate. Reading about that was the minute I became totally solid in my atheist point of view. That was my Ah-Ha! moment. As we get more an more answers to life's questions, there will be no need for the stories we have to explain things that may be mysteries to us now.
    JulieJacobKyle

    Answer by JulieJacobKyle at 1:12 PM on Jun. 7, 2009

  • Actually Darwin did NOT set out to disprove God. That's a common misconception. Evolution doesn't disprove God anyway....because evolution does not explain how life started. Darwin had no idea about abiogenesis, so there's no reason for him to stop believing in God. He just simply found a different way in which it could be that life ended up looking the way it does now AFTER God created it.
    metalcowgirl34

    Answer by metalcowgirl34 at 1:15 PM on Jun. 7, 2009

  • I believe, Cinnamon, that the need to believe in a higher power is VERY strong in some people (and possibly even genetic), and the scientists you speak of are swayed by that. Of course you would say the same about the scientists I choose to agree with :)
    metalcowgirl34

    Answer by metalcowgirl34 at 1:18 PM on Jun. 7, 2009

  • cont. the radiation date. The dates would be impossible with the amount of uranium leakage. There are other minerals that leak too and they will all give you different ages. But part of what bugs me about the radiometric dating is that they set a "clock" for different levels they measure that say "well if it is this level then it is this many million years old" but that is set based on their own timetable, not real evidence that that is how old the rock is. And if you look at the dates they have given in the Grand Canyon alone there are all these contradictions. I will post a quote:

    Cinnamon-mom

    Answer by Cinnamon-mom at 1:22 PM on Jun. 7, 2009