How To Get To Heaven When You Die

[habsheaven]

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.

The very nature of science is a revolving door. You cannot criticize it because further advances in science prove older science wrong. That is how it works. Name once where religion has proved science wrong. Look around you. Science has got it RIGHT everywhere you look.

Whether you avoid the question entirely or you shrug it off as "You have to have faith." Both are equally wrong.

[habsheaven]

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.

I must be missing something. Creationism = it's here, it's glorious, God created it that way. Where is the evidence?

[ensbergcollector]

The very nature of science is a revolving door. You cannot criticize it because further advances in science prove older science wrong. That is how it works. Name once where religion has proved science wrong. Look around you. Science has got it RIGHT everywhere you look.

Whether you avoid the question entirely or you shrug it off as "You have to have faith." Both are equally wrong.

so, science has it figured out then. Science has been wrong more times then it has been right throughout history. Why would religion prove science wrong? The role of religion is not to disprove science. However, it could be argued that science has spent a lot of its history worried about disproving religion.


as for your "science has got it right everywhere you look" comment. Yeah, as of right now. and guess what. 200 years ago people said the same thing. Yet the majority of what science believed 200 years ago wasn't right. it was in fact very wrong. So I don't quite understand the confidence you stand with now saying science is right.

One of the things I respect about religion is its ability to say "I don't know." Science thinks saying I don't know is bad therefore they come up with whatever they can just so long as they have an answer. Can we really look at our known universe and not say "I have absolutely no idea how that came to be"? Why is that wrong?

[boba]

I must be missing something. Creationism = it's here, it's glorious, God created it that way. Where is the evidence?

There is no observational Scientific evidence for evolution or creationism.

[pghin08]

There is no observational Scientific evidence for evolution or creationism.

Huh? What about, you know, a fossil?

[theonedru]

There is no observational Scientific evidence for evolution or creationism.

There is lots of scientific evidence for evolution, from fossil records to happenings today. The same cannot be said for creationism.

[habsheaven]

so, science has it figured out then. Science has been wrong more times then it has been right throughout history. Why would religion prove science wrong? The role of religion is not to disprove science. However, it could be argued that science has spent a lot of its history worried about disproving religion.


as for your "science has got it right everywhere you look" comment. Yeah, as of right now. and guess what. 200 years ago people said the same thing. Yet the majority of what science believed 200 years ago wasn't right. it was in fact very wrong. So I don't quite understand the confidence you stand with now saying science is right.

One of the things I respect about religion is its ability to say "I don't know." Science thinks saying I don't know is bad therefore they come up with whatever they can just so long as they have an answer. Can we really look at our known universe and not say "I have absolutely no idea how that came to be"? Why is that wrong?

Did I just enter a parallel universe? Did you really just type that?

[habsheaven]

There is no observational Scientific evidence for evolution or creationism.

You just said that they were both using the same evidence. Now you say there is none? One of us is very confused.

[mrveggieman]

I think that evoultion and creationism can compliment each other and go hand in hand. I do not however believe that the earth is only 6000 years old. That is laughable and I wonder about the mental makeup of anyone who actually believes that.

[ensbergcollector]

Did I just enter a parallel universe? Did you really just type that?

which part seems to bother you? you mock us when we say anything about faith, why would it surprise you for religious people to say i don't know.


How am I wrong about science?