How To Get To Heaven When You Die

[habsheaven]

Do you realize that most of the founders of modern science where christians trying to disprove common beliefs of the time?

I do, but what is your point?

[boba]

I do, but what is your point?

You act as if christianity is a hindrance to science. As if we don't want explanations about the world around us.

[habsheaven]

You act as if christianity is a hindrance to science. As if we don't want explanations about the world around us.

Christians need EVERYTHING to fit into the confines of a book that is a couple of thousand years old. If it doesn't, it is discarded as "bad" science and conjecture. You only have to read your own comments to see the proof in what I say.

[boba]

Christians need EVERYTHING to fit into the confines of a book that is a couple of thousand years old. If it doesn't, it is discarded as "bad" science and conjecture. You only have to read your own comments to see the proof in what I say.

Evolutionists do the same thing.

[habsheaven]

Evolutionists do the same thing.

For example?

[pghin08]

Evolutionists do the same thing.

If you mean look to scientific evidence of a universal common ancestor, then yes.

[Star_Cards]

I think evolutionists tend to me rather openminded they are more about learning about things as they are discovered rather than defending a religion that they are very personally invested in. I believe in evolution but if one day we had more facts to another way I would be open minded about this new info. I have no personal investment in evolution. It just seems way more plausible to me than the christian story of how the world was formed and how man was created.

I feel that if we ever did get solid proof about how it all began if it were different from the ways that any religion says it happened, those people would be very unlikely to not still defend their personal religion. To me religious people are far more closed minded. Evolutionalists don't claim to know all of the answers and use new information as it comes to help understand how we came about.

[ensbergcollector]

I think evolutionists tend to me rather openminded they are more about learning about things as they are discovered rather than defending a religion that they are very personally invested in. I believe in evolution but if one day we had more facts to another way I would be open minded about this new info. I have no personal investment in evolution. It just seems way more plausible to me than the christian story of how the world was formed and how man was created.

I feel that if we ever did get solid proof about how it all began if it were different from the ways that any religion says it happened, those people would be very unlikely to not still defend their personal religion. To me religious people are far more closed minded. Evolutionalists don't claim to know all of the answers and use new information as it comes to help understand how we came about.

i'm really torn. i do see where most christians could be defined as "close-minded." However, science gets to live in a revolving door of we are the smartest and we are right. For hundreds of years science has said "this is true" and puffed up their chests for being smarter than everyone else. Until they are proven wrong. Then they just say "hey, we weren't wrong, we just didn't have all the information, now that we do, this is true." Time and time again, science has been wrong but always get a free pass. It seems strange to me that the very segment of the population that demands proof of religion seems strangely ok that science keeps giving proof that is later disproved.


all that said, I am not some anti-science christian. i love science and think it is imperative in our knowledge. For me, science only increases my amazement at God. It does bring up hard questions but i'm ok with that. I don't have to have all the answers but to avoid the question entirely is wrong.


also, not sure how you can call religious people close minded and evolutionists open minded. Evolutionists are just as close minded toward religion as many religious people are toward science. Evolutionists are only open minded to ideas that further prove their own theories.

[boba]

All I'm saying is that creationism and evolution are historical sciences. They both have the same evidence, but look at the evidence with different shades. The evolutionist shades are naturalism and the present is the only key to the past. The creationist's shades are that something supernatural created the earth and its laws. They both use the same evidence but come up with different views of that evidence based on their world view.

[boba]

i'm really torn. I do see where most christians could be defined as "close-minded." however, science gets to live in a revolving door of we are the smartest and we are right. For hundreds of years science has said "this is true" and puffed up their chests for being smarter than everyone else. Until they are proven wrong. Then they just say "hey, we weren't wrong, we just didn't have all the information, now that we do, this is true." time and time again, science has been wrong but always get a free pass. It seems strange to me that the very segment of the population that demands proof of religion seems strangely ok that science keeps giving proof that is later disproved.


All that said, i am not some anti-science christian. I love science and think it is imperative in our knowledge. For me, science only increases my amazement at god. It does bring up hard questions but i'm ok with that. I don't have to have all the answers but to avoid the question entirely is wrong.


Also, not sure how you can call religious people close minded and evolutionists open minded. Evolutionists are just as close minded toward religion as many religious people are toward science. evolutionists are only open minded to ideas that further prove their own theories.

+1