quote:Originally posted by NashBama:
One doesn't have to choose between science and religion. I love science, studied it in college, have a bachelors of science degree. I also believe in God although I'm not a member of any church or denomination.
Nash, you appear to support science right up to the point where it conflicts with your religion. Beyond that point, no amount of evidence will change your deeply held beliefs. That is not an attribute of one who "loves" science.
Someone who "loves science" must be prepared to change his entire worldview based on the evidence (or lack thereof) at hand. In fact, one who loves science just can't freaking WAIT to have his wordlview changed. That definitely describes me and I dare say I can speak the same for my friend Deep and Miami.
Example: You evidently dismiss the fact that the Big Bang happened. Great! Science thrives on free thinkers but in order to claim to be a supporter of science, you MUST come up with an alternate theory that fits the evidence. Instead, the best you can come up with is, "I just know it isn't true."
Thanks not science. That's religion.
Which gets back to my point, Nash: Unlike What4 and Bill, you don't come right out and say, "You are wrong and here is what you must believe if you want to avoid hell . . ." but your actions say, "You must choose between science what what I believe and I KNOW I am right."
Therefore, you "make" people choose between science and religion - just not quite as blatantly as What4 and Bill.