Science and Religion

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by cheerfulgreek

The crazy thing about this is you would think cartographers would have made a spherical model of Earth within the next few centuries. But no. I could be wrong, but I think the earliest known terrestrial globe didn't appear until somewhere around 1490-92.

http://www.1worldglobes.com/earthglobe.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globe#Manufacture

c. 150 BC

[ForeverRoses]

Originally Posted by cheerfulgreek

preciousjeni, you may have a point and this may very well be true, but then again it could be off too. To me, science is not about finding out true things, at least not if by "true" we mean that those things never change. I think it pretty much helps us find descriptions of the world that seem to work, in the same sense that we can use those descriptions to make predictions that are usually pretty reliable. The way I see it, is if a scientific prediction fails, it does so because the theory that led to it is imperfect, or even totally wrong, or has been applied to a situation in which it's an inappropriate description of, and in this case, the way the Earth was created, but it can be anything. The science itself can't be wrong, because it's an activity, not a theory. I just believe in seeing beyond the obvious.

To me, it just seems way off, because the fact that all living things we know of use the same building blocks in essentially the same way, which to me is a powerful piece of circumstantial evidence that all life on Earth may stem from a single origin. I mean, how do we know that we're not all descended from some common ancestor? I wouldn't even rule out the possibility that some completely different form of life also existed on Earth long ago, because there's been fossil evidence that shows that life already existed on Earth before us. I'm not just talking about dinosuars, but single celled life that may have dated back 4 billion years ago. I mean, that's less than a billion years after the Earth formed, and long before dinosaurs and man. To me, a few hundred million years seems like a short time for chemistry to progress from simple things like carbon dioxide and ammonia, to things like proteins and DNA. No one really knows how life started, but based on fossil findings, Genesis doesn't make sense to me.

I read the book of Genesis a couple of days ago, and Mysticat you're right, the part you were referring to does get confusing.

Then we have the whole Big Bang theory. It may be true, but I see some flaws in this theory.

preciousjeni, you made a great point though.

Have you ever heard or seen Julia Sweeney's "Letting Go of God". I don't agree with her final conclusion, but the whole program is very well thought out and she talks about evolution in it. I think it is available for download from iTunes or her website. Anyway, this whole discussion reminded me of that.

[cheerfulgreek]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

http://www.1worldglobes.com/earthglobe.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globe#Manufacture

c. 150 BC

Thanks Drolefille. Great info, but I was actually speaking of the earliest known terrestrial globe still in existence, which if not mistaken I think it was somewhere around the 1490s.

[cheerfulgreek]

Originally Posted by ForeverRoses

Have you ever heard or seen Julia Sweeney's "Letting Go of God". I don't agree with her final conclusion, but the whole program is very well thought out and she talks about evolution in it. I think it is available for download from iTunes or her website. Anyway, this whole discussion reminded me of that.

Actually no, I can't say that I've heard of this one. I agree with the process of evolution, but I don't agree with just totally letting go of God.

What was the final conclusion about? Just curious.