I posted this topic on an AOL message board about science and religion.

***Wow. There must be some real intellects that frequent that board.

Einstein's theory is wrong. His theory is based on the hypothetical foundation that the speed of light is constant everywhere.

***You’re off to a bad start already. The ***constant regarding the speed of light ***regards the MAXIMUM speed it can attain ***(i.e. 186,282 miles per second). It is ***well known the light can move slower in ***certain situations - when it moves ***through water for example.

But recently, it was shown and proven by a team of chinese scientists that light can be made to crawl, even stop. This contradicts Einstein's basic assumption.

***I am unaware of this "Chinese" experiment. Please post a RELIABLE address that details the experiment. Did this group of scientists publish their findings in a peer-reviewed journal? Whether or not they made light slow down or stop does NOT violate any constants nor does it contradict Einstein as I clarified to you above.

The second law of thermodynamics implies that you cannot get something from nothing.

***WHAT? Do you have any idea of what you’re talking about? Perhaps you better crack open a book before opening your mouth. Can you state what the second Law of Thermodynamics ACTUALLY says? Do you even know who wrote the Laws of Thermodynamics? The Second Law actually states that the total entropy of a closed system (one that no energy or matter leaves or enters) cannot decrease. Entropy is a physical concept often casually described as disorder, but it differs significantly from the conversational use of the word. More important, however, the Second Law permits parts of a system to decrease in entropy as long as other parts experience an offsetting increase. When heat flows spontaneously from a hot part of a system to a colder part of the system, the entropy of the hot area spontaneously decreases! How does this relate, even remotely, to your statement?

The findings of the Chinese and Australian teams of scientists that light is NOT CONSTANT

***Before you said that it was Chinese scientists. Now you say Australian and Chinese scientists. Which is it?

Going farther, Einstein's theory asserted that nothing can travel BEYOND (emphasis mine) the speed of light.

***You got it right this time but contradicted your previous statements.

In effect, it implies philosophically that God is limited, perceivable, and He has finite power. Obviously, it also implies that God moves less than the speed of light, which is His creation.

***This is another head scratcher. Where, at any point, does Einstein’s observation of natural laws imply, infer, say, theorize, or make any assumptions about the properties of the supernatural?

However, those theories that don't contradict God's wisdom and the creative manifestations of His power will stand the test of time for all eternity.

***In essence, you’re saying anything that science discovers contradicts the Bible has to be wrong, but anything that science finds that supports the Bible (the list gets smaller and smaller each year) is right. Boy, that’s keeping an open mind.

The second law of thermodynamics that something comes from something is consistent with what is written at Revelations 4:11.

***You contradicted yourself AGAIN.

The theory proposed by the team of Australian scientists that light is not constant, and at its origin, light has infinite speed and decelerated by time to what is its speed now.

***NOW it is only Australian scientists and the results of this so-called “experiment” are different from what you stated above. Let me guess, these are probably “creation-scientists”, the biggest joke of all.

God is almighty (Genesis 17:1)…. 1 Corinthians 3:19, 20. "For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God...God knows that the reasonings of the wise men are futile… what's written in Isaiah 40:22…what is written at Revelations 4:11… what is written in Isaiah 40:26… Malachi 3:6…Genesis 15:5

***Now we get to the motivation behind your rantings. Sorry, but quotes from the Bible do not constitute evidence or proof. The Bible is NOT one book at all. It is a mish-mash of tales stolen from pagan sources (Eden was taken from the Babylonian account; the flood is an epitome of some 400 flood myths-ALL of which predate the writing of the Bible; the names of Noah’s sons are a copy, as is Isaac’s sacrifice, Solomon’s judgment, and Samson’s pillar act; Moses is fashioned after the Syrian Mises, and the commandments after Hammurabi’s code). It was assembled, picked through and chosen by the powers-that-be at the time. How strange God could not "write" one clear-cut work. These ancient scriptures that even today are being RE-WRITTEN to better conform to what the "church" wants us to believe. How can one feel that it is an accurate document when it wasn’t even written until some 300 years after the mythical Christ’s death.

***You continue on with your twisted, tortuous line of thought that I will not dignify by calling it logic. Don’t clutter up this board with your raving idiocies on the benefits of religion vs. your perceived shortcomings of science. In closing, I always find it comical when people use computers, e-mail, and the Internet to complain about science. Then they get in their cars, ride on smooth roads, use their phones, wear well-constructed clothes, buy healthy, safe food in supermarkets, store that food in refrigerators, use air conditioning, wear glasses, watch TV, listen to CD’s or the radio, buy aspirin for their headaches, go to the doctor when they’re sick, and so on ad infinitum.

In relation to the origin of the bible, there are numerous books on the subject, so I won't go indepth except to counter your key statement: that since it is made of a "mish mash" of texts and scriptures and tablets it is wrong and that if God wanted to speak to us he would have written one book. This is entirely illogical:

God wasn't "writing a book" in the sense of a novelist. God spoke his "word" (meaning, messege) through prophets: those prophets lead to written accounts, referred to as "written by God" due to his inspiration behind them. The fact that there are more texts and manuscripts and sources for the bible than any other work in history, in a literary sense, makes it rather accurate. In fact, it by far has MORE source material, and reference material than any other text in the world: that might just as easily be seen as more evidence to it, not as "mish mash". Furthar, the exclusion and inclusion of materal is not haphazard.... there are standards and doctrine.

Basically, science can NEVER disprove God, since religion is FAITH.... if you could prove or disprove it it wouldn't be called a FAITH... it would be knowledge, information, facts, a theory, etc. That doesn't make applying one to the other horribly "wrong" or motivated. Logic must be applied rather than twisted, and pointing those moments out was more appropriate and blasting his "motives".

Untill then, in this physical world, I believe artist are angels and/or demons, for they have the knowledge and the roles of fire keepers, educators, healers, shamans and peace makers passed on by our ancestors. Knowledge we can nuture or bastardize.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Coffee Cat:
"... (scientists) use things that SEEM to contradict or disprove scripture in order to influence people away from having faith, or even to merely mock faith. ...but for the most part I think that the church is merely reacting to science's portrayal of faith as superstition (by science I mean the scientific world).

---

To blindly say that professionals in the various scientific disciplines are attempting to mock faith is to paint with a broad brush. The division between those who pursue of knowledge and discover contradictions with the teachings of the faithful is well-known (Galileo, Darwin, etc.). And the fact that there are scientific professionals who overzealously attempt to disprove God does not diminish the VAST benefits that science has brought forth. I think it is much more likely that those atheists/agnostics/deists are themselves responding to the innumerable transgressions and lies produced by men of faith. to say that the church is "merely reacting" is to be too kind. The religious institutions are finding their influence steadily erode. The best way for them to counter this erosion is to use the "straw man" argument - misrepresent the position and facts of the offender and attack said offender on the basis of the misrepresentations. By demonizing a perceived enemy, these institutions consolidate a base of support. There are many honest scientific professionals (as there are religious professionals) who only seek knowledge and truth without any preconceived biases. Yet these same people are crucified (no pun intended) for daring to "question" any religious tenet or docrine. But conversely, it OK for the faithful to ruthlessly vilify anyone who introduce a theory that challenges church doctrine.

I agree with Twedzel that the exploration of our world is to reveal God for what he/she/it really is. If what we discover doesn't jive with some scripture, it doesn't mean God doesn't exist, it means our intrepretation of God may be misunderstood.