Science and religion are near opposites. Why you ask? Because of the way they work. In science, Evidence is found, and is followed by a theory. In Religion, An idea was stated, followed by the creation of evidence to prove the theory. So in a way, religion is only true because it was made true.
On another note, I would like to challenge the bible in a few ways. Firstly, When Noah created his ark and the world flooded, he saved 2 of each animals. However, genes show that reproduction from 2 animals cannot create for more than several generations, due to the fact that it would cause genetic mishaps. This would apply to Adam and Eve as well. And what about plants? Animals need to eat something. Some may say that Instead of the world being flooded, only HIS world was flooded, meaning as far as he could see. But if that is the case, how did he get 2 of ALL the animals?
Science is a fact and we can understand parts of it, but religion is not concrete, you can only have faith that a God exists. I will recall now Auguste Comte's Law of three stages. It states that society as a whole, and each particular science, develops through three mentally conceived stages: 1) The Theocratic stage refers to explanation by personified deities. The 3 sub-stages: A. Animism- Turning everyday objects into items of extreme religious purpose and worship, perhaps with godlike qualities. B. Polytheism - Explanation of things through the use of many gods. C. Monotheism - Attributing all to a single, supreme deity.
2) The Metaphysical stage refers to explanation by impersonal abstract explanation. Often those who developed metaphysical systems believed they were engaging in scientific activity, but they were not.
3) The Positivity stage refers to scientific explanation based on observation, experiment, and comparison. Positive explanations rely upon a distinct method, the scientific method, for its justification.
you can have faith in science but of course, not everything in science is right, but lots has been proven right. That is why people choose science over religion, things in science can be proven, things in religion cannot unless God himself slaps you.
That's the beauty of science! You do not need faith in it, because faith is replaced by proof and evidence. It is easier for people to accept something when there is evidence supporting a theory, than it is having faith in something that that you can not interact with directly.
ome may say that Instead of the world being flooded, only HIS world was flooded, meaning as far as he could see. But if that is the case, how did he get 2 of ALL the animals?
Did you not just answer that yourself? His world, all the animals in his world. This was most likely a few birds, cows, goats, horses, cats, dogs and sheeps.
Did you not just answer that yourself? His world, all the animals in his world. This was most likely a few birds, cows, goats, horses, cats, dogs and sheeps.
But then why do we have polar bears, giraffes, zebras etc...
There is science in Islam.
That's very nice. Explain moar?
when god decided to flood earth he was probably like **** it lets start over. OMG i bet ppl were mad at him.
It's because of people like you that Kirb left the world events section.
But then why do we have polar bears, giraffes, zebras etc...
He never said that they were not included...excluding maybe the polar bears, but I think you misunderstand. If only part of the world is flooded and he gets 2 of each animal in that area, then others outside of that area could have survived anyways because they were not effected by the flood. Going by this theory, this could also mean that other dogs, cats, etc. may have existed to have them breed together also possibly answering the whole genetic mishap thing you were talking about. Does this make any sense to you?
....And as we kept unearthing fossilized animals that were from a long time ago, Noahs ark started to sink. So the Church decided to put in the bible that Noah, instead of bringing in 2 of every animal, to put in DIFFERENT KINDS of animals, using evidence that scientists have found.
So yeah, you can see why Religion is not my cup of tea.
That's not even true. The first thing is that Noah was 600 years old when the flood happened, and so why would they bother changing the 2 of every animal and NOT change his age? They don't. The Bible says it happened this way and it did. Just look around you. Where did all the animals come from if Noah didn't put them all on the ark to begin with? They would have all drowned.
That's not even true. The first thing is that Noah was 600 years old when the flood happened, and so why would they bother changing the 2 of every animal and NOT change his age? They don't. The Bible says it happened this way and it did. Just look around you. Where did all the animals come from if Noah didn't put them all on the ark to begin with? They would have all drowned.
So two of every animal on an insanely massive ship that must have had over 6 billion animals on it makes sense? Great. The flood may have happened but somehow I doubt it would have happened all over the world. Your post doesn't help your story. Honestly all you've said is that because the bible says something silly like Noah was 600 it means that anything less stupid is suddenly true.
