Land Bridge

[AKIron]

God is no God if mere men can work out what he's on about.  Science is reason, religion is faith. That's all there is to it.  Neither of those two contradict or refute the other.

I have to agree that man will never fully know the mind of God even if we live forever in eternity. That does not mean we can't understand what we do know or that we shouldn't strive to know the mind of God. So long as there is more to learn both science and faith will help us to grow.

[moot]

No, what I said is that I understand that God made man in his own image. 

How do you know this for a fact?  Not only do you not, but approaching an issue of faith with a rational, scientific method will lead you nowhere.

"In his own image" is not "in the form of a few random cells which eventually formed some early life... which evolved into apes... which evolved into someone like Lucy... which evolved into modern man."  I don't need to understand God's mind to know what is written about that.

More faith stated as though it was scientific fact.

Actually, why pit them against one another? To reconcile one with another is the obvious choice.  The hinderance in doing that would be on the part of the scientists refusing to add God as having created everything into any of their equations. 

Scientists are not concerned with God.  You need to work this out before going any further.

In fact, you could probably preface every scientific theory with this silent phrase, and it would be an accurate portrayal of any intent in scientific "progress:"

Preface scientific work with a religious statement?  Irrelevant.

Absent of God, how could this have happened?

Well, you understand God, so why don't you explain it?  You don't and won't, because you can't.

[texasmom]

  I need to work it out further?  Don't think so.
I'm pretty solid on God having created everything.  The thing about God, though, is that yes (as you stated) it is entirely on faith.  So, are you given the choice to believe it as well?  Absolutely ~  I don't need to work it out any further before continuing m00t.  It's all well and good for you not to believe.  And I won't be posting any firey pictures of hell burning. 

As long as I continue to mention God, if everything will be discarded as irrelevant, that's fine too. 

[moot]

I have to agree that man will never fully know the mind of God even if we live forever in eternity. That does not mean we can't understand what we do know or that we shouldn't strive to know the mind of God.

Which would never amount to anything substantial in comparison with "God"'s knowledge, as I illustrated in the last time a thread went about this topic.. It's a mathematical impossibility, short of reaching God ourselves. If I can work that out, it's not rocket science.
Understanding what we do know is a matter of reason, philosophy.  No faith required.  In fact (i'd wager so if i was totaly sober) I'd say it's better if faith is kept out of it.

So long as there is more to learn both science and faith will help us to grow.

Which doesn't mean the two aren't completely separate from one another.

[texasmom]

Scientists are not concerned with God.  You need to work this out before going any further.Preface scientific work with a religious statement?  Irrelevant.

That was exactly the point I was making when I said you could preface any scientific theory with the phrase:
"Absent of God, how could this have happened?"

Science entirely rejects the possibility of a divine creator, to the point where it's not even considered.

[MORAY37]

Jumping on the "hey, look at this science snippit" bandwagon, eh?    Ok, that's fine ~ it's a norm. Drive on there wagoneers.

Oh, you mean the "look, I can prove this with fact wagon"?

While you say... "I just have faith that tells me the earth is 14,000 years old."

[midnight Target]

I have no problem with Txmom believing whatever floats her boat. Sher is an adult and free to live her life as she chooses. I have a HUGE problem with home schooling children who will never have an incling of the scientific method or the reasons why it has served so well over the years. I find this development troubling indeed.

[moot]

I need to work it out further?  Don't think so.

The maternal thing won't work.. it has no pertinence whatsoever on the subject.

I'm pretty solid on God having created everything. 

Solid in faith or reason?  If the former, there's nothing arguable about it, and so neither proof nor disproof possible for it.  It's no grounds for any concrete argument for or against anything, including land bridges.

The thing about God, though, is that yes (as you stated) it is entirely on faith.  So, are you given the choice to believe it as well?  Absolutely ~  I don't need to work it out any further before continuing m00t.  It's all well and good for you not to believe.  And I won't be posting any firey pictures of hell burning. 

Who says I don't believe?  You still don't see the logic to all this.  It has nothing to do with 's or pictures of hell burning.  In fact I could argue that, I, using the brain that "God" has given me, am closer to Truth than you are, clinging to unreasonable ideas that just don't stand up to Reason.

As long as I continue to mention God, if everything will be discarded as irrelevant, that's fine too. 

Irrelevant in a scientific metric of things.

[texasmom]

Which would never amount to anything substantial in comparison with "God"'s knowledge, as I illustrated in the last time a thread went about this topic.. It's a mathematical impossibility, short of reaching God ourselves. If I can work that out, it's not rocket science.
Understanding what we do know is a matter of reason, philosophy.  No faith required.  In fact (i'd wager so if i was totaly sober) I'd say it's better if faith is kept out of it.Which doesn't mean the two aren't completely separate from one another.

So basically, what we do know (a matter of reason, philosophy) can only be done objectively with the understanding that God doesn't come into the picture anywhere?  That's just silly to think that bringing God into anything automatically discounts it as 'without reason.'

And I totally agree on the point you made several times about us seeking the knowledge of God.  Yes, I think it's impossible for us to ever reach that level ~ and I think that in our own scientific studies we have only scraped the surface of what God has already perfected.

[moot]

Science entirely rejects the possibility of a divine creator, to the point where it's not even considered.

Wrong.  This is proof you don't know what you're talking about.
Show evidence of this or admit you're wrong.

[moot]

So basically, what we do know (a matter of reason, philosophy) can only be done objectively with the understanding that God doesn't come into the picture anywhere?  That's just silly to think that bringing God into anything automatically discounts it as 'without reason.'
It spoils the rational mechanics and makes any prediction from such assertions UNTESTABLE.  Brass tacks, here.

And I totally agree on the point you made several times about us seeking the knowledge of God.  Yes, I think it's impossible for us to ever reach that level ~ and I think that in our own scientific studies we have only scraped the surface of what God has already perfected.

I don't see what God has to do with anything we might gleam out of scientific work.

And that's it for me, for now, I'm going to enjoy a nice jog up the mountain and some starry sky.

p.s. I saw you appreciated litterary suggestions.. I'd suggest Plato's study of ideas vs. concrete reality, and the confusion between the two by people, and his consequent distrust of media.  As a start..

[AKIron]

Which would never amount to anything substantial in comparison with "God"'s knowledge, as I illustrated in the last time a thread went about this topic.. It's a mathematical impossibility, short of reaching God ourselves. If I can work that out, it's not rocket science.
Understanding what we do know is a matter of reason, philosophy.  No faith required.  In fact (i'd wager so if i was totaly sober) I'd say it's better if faith is kept out of it.Which doesn't mean the two aren't completely separate from one another.

Faith that there is more to know is necessary for learning to take place.  

[texasmom]

I don't see what God has to do with anything we might gleam out of scientific work.
And that's it for me, for now, I'm going to enjoy a nice jog up the mountain and some starry sky.

Again, scientific work is merely the study of what God created.


Enjoy your jog.
And my son is almost finished with his science test, so I'm off as well.

[MORAY37]

I have no problem with Txmom believing whatever floats her boat. Sher is an adult and free to live her life as she chooses. I have a HUGE problem with home schooling children who will never have an incling of the scientific method or the reasons why it has served so well over the years. I find this development troubling indeed.

I agree with this statement more than any other ever written on these boards.  Brainwashing such as this was the main force behind the "Dark Ages".  Rational thought and scientific methodology was at a standstill to wrote repetition of dogmatic principle.

It does not make you godless to rationally question the world around you, including "God".  It does make you irresponsible to the highest degree to subjectively dismiss the advances of the preceding 1000 years "just because you think so", especially when dealing with children who need to think in a rational capacity.  

But then again, both political parties are counting on your dismissal of rationality... So, I guess that makes you more "American" than all of us, by default.

[MORAY37]

I don't see what God has to do with anything we might gleam out of scientific work.

And that's it for me, for now, I'm going to enjoy a nice jog up the mountain and some starry sky.

p.s. I saw you appreciated litterary suggestions.. I'd suggest Plato's study of ideas vs. concrete reality, and the confusion between the two by people, and his consequent distrust of media.  As a start..

moot... you have earned a new respect.  I wholeheartedly agree with your recommendations to the lady.
(last night's stupidity aside.)