And to think - when I tell people that global warming advocates are probably just financially motivated, they laugh at me as though it's impossible.

Not really.  We are under a diff dispensation but his laws are constant.  We've gone from being under the law in the OT to being under the law of Grace in the NT.  But God never changes.  To murder is the same against God whether in the Old dispensation or the new.  Same with adultery the same with stealing ...etc. 

They're not the same.  Gravity has proven itself and is truth.  The theory of evolution is constantly changing with no clear answers as of yet.  Diff scientists have diff views and can't quite seem to get their stories to match.  I guess you could say the same with religionists.

So again, my point is there are alot of similarities to faith in science  and faith in religion.  I believe and worship the God of science who put the cosmos in place using the laws of gravity and other scientific means.  The bible does not contradict science but there is some psudo-science out there that attempts to disprove God. 

In case anyone needed to have this pointed out to them, these sentences are not equivalent. To spell it out with an example.

Let's say the survey group consisted of 7 million scientists, and only one scientist was guilty of misconduct. If a full 1 million scientists considered that scientist a "collegue" and knew of his misconduct, then the "one in seven" reporting statistic is satisfied. Even more to the point, even if no scientist was guilty of misconduct, but 1 million just thought someone was, the statistic would still be reached.

lula posts:

BASMAS POSTS:

When I say pseudo scientific macro-evolution theory, I'm talking about Darwinism....The chapter on Evolution in my daughter's 10th grade biology textbook alleges over eons of time natural transition from reptiles to mammals, etc. It's chock full of half truths, untruths, and nonsense.

The science of modern genetics of DNA has debunked that.    

Re: the highlighted, I am guilty of writing that.

Your point is well made and well taken.

And so is KFC's. The article reports that

and she rightly asks:

That it is happening at all and they are seemingly getting away with it is unconscionable.

I automatically begin to question articles that read like this. Not because it threatens any "faith" I have in scientists but because it seems to be trying too hard to force a particular conclusion. For example, instead of saying a study suggests something, the article starts off saying it as undisputed fact with it only being possibly "suggested" as a foot note. Also, generally studies don't "suggest" anything, they present statistics (hopefully properly collected and appropriate) and leave it to people to draw conclusions. So when it is said that a study suggests something, I have to ask, "who is drawing the conclusion that it suggests that"?

Once again, that 46% say they have observed states almost nothing. I won't go through the 1 in 7 problem again, but here's another. If 100 scientists are viewing an experiment by one of their colleagues and afterwards 46 say he engaged in "questionable practices", while the other 54 say he did everything fine, did he actually do anything wrong?

Then we get the conflicting statistic and the writer suggests it means the scientists are lying. The possibility that human beings are actually more critical of others than of themselves is presented as an alternative instead of possibly a primary conclusion. It sounds to me like someone is trying to make an inconclusive study seem like it was worth funding.

I used to think that scientists were similar to religious adherents, but then I realized that science is a system that can alter itself over time, If things don't add up, then that means it is a time for a change. When has religion ever stopped itself and said, "Wait a sec, maybe we need to do things differently?" Science bases such things on evidence, which can change and change it; religion bases it on faith, which has yet to change.

Discover magazine says it well here.

Statistically it isn't that significant, but scientifically...it stinks. That being said, I find it humorous that you're agreeing to the attempted debunking through a vary scarce sample.

LOL - You deserve a cookie for that.

That being said, Discover magazine says it well:

Happens all the time.  Have you been watching what's going on in the Anglican church?  A split?  Splits in churches over religion in the name of change? 

Now, if you're talking about the bible....that's different.  That never changes and is still relative to today. It will be here long after you and I are dust even tho there was some in history who said different.   They're long gone and the bible is still here. 

 Scripture can be read by us today with the same results as those who read it years and years ago and years and years from now.  It never ages.   Back a while we were reading the book of Colossians written in the first century and it was like it was written specifically just for us.  We kept commenting on how relevant the words word for us today.  There is nothing new under the sun.

What was wrong in God's eyes back then is still wrong in God's eyes now.  What is right and holy in his eyes now is still right and holy now. 

I'm not talking about churches, but the very principles and foundation of faith, etc.

Lucas,  sorry to inform you but we have no jurisdiction on changing the word of God.  We can ignore it.  We can disbelieve it.  We can do our own thing with it, but we can't change what God has written down for us.   It's there for us whether we want to believe it or not.    I believe we will all personally be held accountable for what we did with it. 

Hence what I mentioned:

You don't get it. 

God doesn't need changing Lucas.  Science is about the interpretation of evidence.  That does need changing from time to time when new evidence crops up, but God who is spiritual and wrote about spiritual things needs no adjusting. 

There are two things we have been discussing. 

1.  Science and Religion

2.  Scientists and Religionists

Science and religion fit like a glove to a hand. God created and used science in his creation of the world.

There will always be friction between scientists and religionists on account of faith.  Some believe that science has all the answers for life and others believe that religion has all the answers for life. 

Albert Einstein says that both go together and they do not need to be exclusive of one another.  Science has contributed greatly to mankind and so too has religion.  Both have their flaws (due to interpretations)  but both have their positives as well.  One deals with the physical realm and one with the spiritual. 

Science is not a book.  Science never pretends to 'have all the answers.'  It is a process or discipline highly useful in acquiring knowledge.  Only religions claim that some things are indisputable and must be accepted on faith regardless of any evidence to the contrary.

If I'm not mistaken, Einstein held that belief in a god was not incompatible with science, but I'm not so sure that he believed organized religion and science 'go together' as you suggest, or that the Bible and science do so.

I don't think that Einstein believed in the God that Christians do either.  Actually, not really any theological description of God.  So you can't really compare Einstein's beliefs in a god, and science, and the Christian beliefs in God, and science, as they are different.

But his word does, right? If the Bible is the word of God, then why the claimed missing parts? If there are gospels and other parts that are apocryhpa - then yes, that is revising or adjusting. You cannot accept things selectively, right?