http://kalkion.com/news/what-happens-when-science-meets-religion/586

http://kalkion.com/news/what-happens-when-science-meets-religion/586

IlBeBa... at (no spam) gmail.com wrote:
F.F. Bruce, worlds leading Archeologist .

"World's leading archaeologist, my ass. He was nothing more than an
evangelical apologist. Many archaeologists have shown that some things
in the bible are not archeology sound.

On Oct 19, 11:08 am, Tekkaman <jabriol2... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
http://kalkion.com/news/what-happens-when-science-meets-religion/586

Its not science 'versus' religion ; its science complimenting The
Bible . Science is constanting showing the Bible has been true all
along including Archeology : "Not one archeological find has ever
controverted the Bible " --- F.F. Bruce, worlds leading
Archeologist .

On Oct 19, 11:08 am, Tekkaman <jabriol2... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
http://kalkion.com/news/what-happens-when-science-meets-religion/586

Its not science 'versus' religion ; its science complimenting The
Bible . Science is constanting showing the Bible has been true all
along including Archeology :

"Not one archeological find has ever
controverted the Bible " --- F.F. Bruce, worlds leading
Archeologist .

On Oct 19, 11:08 am, Tekkaman <jabriol2... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
http://kalkion.com/news/what-happens-when-science-meets-religion/586

Its not science 'versus' religion ; its science complimenting The
Bible . Science is constanting showing the Bible has been true all
along including Archeology : "Not one archeological find has ever
controverted the Bible " --- F.F. Bruce, worlds leading
Archeologist .

On Oct 20, 1:03 am, "IlBeBa... at (no spam) gmail.com" <ilbeba... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:

On Oct 19, 11:08 am, Tekkaman <jabriol2... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:

http://kalkion.com/news/what-happens-when-science-meets-religion/586

Its not science 'versus' religion ;  its  science complimenting The
Bible  .  Science is constanting showing the Bible has been true all
along including Archeology :  "Not one archeological find has ever
controverted the Bible " ---  F.F. Bruce, worlds leading
Archeologist .\

Source please. Book or study for example

Who, strangely enough, wasn't an archaeologist at all!http://en.wikipedia..org/wiki/F._F._Bruce

       If you ask a person about conflict between science and religion, in
most cases that person will immediately think "evolution" (even though
many religious denominations get along fine with evolution).  Additionally,
some will think of the age of the universe or the use of fetal stem cells..  

       In earlier times, the issues might have been: a spherical versus
flat earth, a heliocentric versus geocentric solar system; the germ theory
of disease versus supernatural curses; the morality of post-mortem
examinations, vaccinations, and the dissection of cadavers for research
and education. There are in fact still some religions that don't believe in
medical treatment of any kind.

      Important as the above subjects are, the really fundamental
disagreement between science and religion is not about such specific
issues and conclusions, but about the way of arriving at conclusions.

      Where religion bases its conclusions on authority--from a person,
book, or tradition-- science bases its conclusions on evidence and
reasoning.

      A scientific investigation starts with a question, and tries to find
an answer through observation, experiment, and self-critical reasoning.  A
theological investigation, though, starts with an answer, and, if evidence
and reasoning get in the way of that answer, the theologist will wiggle
through, or put a spin on, the evidence and logic.  

      In religion, it is generally considered a great virtue to "believe",
almost without questioning and certainly without wavering.  In science,
the virtue is in questioning, looking for holes in any line of thinking, and
being susceptible to new ideas.  

      A scientific conclusion is always open to change, as new evidence or
reasoning comes along. SCIENCE EVOLVES. But a religious conclusion is
supposed to be eternal and universal, regardless of evidence and
reasoning.

      Science looks for order and predictable cause-and-effect
relationships.  Attributing something to un-understandable whimsy is,
scientifically, a pessimistic outlook, since it says that there is no hope
for research going deeper.

      With some people, phenomena not understood are relegated to the
realm  of supernatural--a "God of the gaps".  But as things that were once
not understood become understood, this realm gets smaller and smaller.  For
example, most of us no longer attribute bad weather and diseases to
curses, mental disease and epilepsy to possession by demons, or earthquakes,
volcanic eruptions, and eclipses to angry gods.  

      An interesting aside: Isaac Newton, a religious man, invoked the
hand of God to explain a small deficiency between calculations based on his
theory and the actually observed motions of planets.  He thought that God
interfered to set things right every once in a while.  But a century
later, the great French mathematician Laplace made better calculations with
Newton's equations and showed that there was no such deficiency, and
therefore no need for the hypothesis of God's interference.

      Many people, including some very intelligent ones, seem to
compartmentalize their thinking.  It's as if they use different parts of
the mind for science, religion, politics, economics, etc., with very few
interconnections between those parts--an apartheid of the intellect.

Ed Pearlstein

       If you ask a person about conflict between science and religion, in
most cases that person will immediately think "evolution" (even though
many religious denominations get along fine with evolution).  Additionally,
some will think of the age of the universe or the use of fetal stem cells..  

       In earlier times, the issues might have been: a spherical versus
flat earth, a heliocentric versus geocentric solar system; the germ theory
of disease versus supernatural curses; the morality of post-mortem
examinations, vaccinations, and the dissection of cadavers for research
and education. There are in fact still some religions that don't believe in
medical treatment of any kind.

      Important as the above subjects are, the really fundamental
disagreement between science and religion is not about such specific
issues and conclusions, but about the way of arriving at conclusions.

      Where religion bases its conclusions on authority--from a person,
book, or tradition-- science bases its conclusions on evidence and
reasoning.

      A scientific investigation starts with a question, and tries to find
an answer through observation, experiment, and self-critical reasoning.  A
theological investigation, though, starts with an answer, and, if evidence
and reasoning get in the way of that answer, the theologist will wiggle
through, or put a spin on, the evidence and logic.  

      In religion, it is generally considered a great virtue to "believe",
almost without questioning and certainly without wavering.  In science,
the virtue is in questioning, looking for holes in any line of thinking, and
being susceptible to new ideas.  

      A scientific conclusion is always open to change, as new evidence or
reasoning comes along. SCIENCE EVOLVES. But a religious conclusion is
supposed to be eternal and universal, regardless of evidence and
reasoning.

      Science looks for order and predictable cause-and-effect
relationships.  Attributing something to un-understandable whimsy is,
scientifically, a pessimistic outlook, since it says that there is no hope
for research going deeper.

      With some people, phenomena not understood are relegated to the
realm  of supernatural--a "God of the gaps".  But as things that were once
not understood become understood, this realm gets smaller and smaller.  For
example, most of us no longer attribute bad weather and diseases to
curses, mental disease and epilepsy to possession by demons, or earthquakes,
volcanic eruptions, and eclipses to angry gods.  

      An interesting aside: Isaac Newton, a religious man, invoked the
hand of God to explain a small deficiency between calculations based on his
theory and the actually observed motions of planets.  He thought that God
interfered to set things right every once in a while.  But a century
later, the great French mathematician Laplace made better calculations with
Newton's equations and showed that there was no such deficiency, and
therefore no need for the hypothesis of God's interference.

      Many people, including some very intelligent ones, seem to
compartmentalize their thinking.  It's as if they use different parts of
the mind for science, religion, politics, economics, etc., with very few
interconnections between those parts--an apartheid of the intellect.

Ed Pearlstein

Its not science 'versus' religion ; its science complimenting The
Bible . Science is constanting showing the Bible has been true all
along including Archeology : "Not one archeological find has ever
controverted the Bible " --- F.F. Bruce, worlds leading
Archeologist .\

Source please. Book or study for example

A. Powell Davies (a minister) points out a number of such finds that do in