|
| Thread: Science Vs. Religion |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
Wub
Responsible
Famous Hero
|
posted October 19, 2002 01:54 PM |
|
|
Quote:
It would change many peoples worldview if they knew that science is very limited...limited by our own human fraility
Well of course science is very limited. It would be strange if science from the first day of its existence claimed to know all answers of all complicated matters in life. It would probably be a religion then. But the power of science lies in the methodological ways of gathering and processing information, so that the human bias (or fragility as you call it) is reduced to a minimum. I think that a good scientist shouldn't be objective, he should strictly follow the methods that will make his conclusion objective.
____________
|
|
Thunder
Responsible
Famous Hero
|
|
posted October 19, 2002 03:32 PM |
|
|
How can scientists claim to know that the world has existed billions of years? It is just a theory and largely relies on fossil finds and some vague experiments made by different methods, and not to mention made by methods that are difficult to prove to be true. It is difficult to use scientific method to prove it, why? Because first you had to bury some organisms ensuring that they would become fossils and not just to rot away. Then you wait some thousands of years to see if the methods used to test the age of things are really true. And longer the timescale the more you have to wait. Not to mention that enviroment and nature itself can change the "age" of fossils greatly and that will likely prove very large variaty of results.
What comes to reliability of fossil finds, well, there are very small amounts of mid-forms (propably not correct term) that could prove it to be the truth. Moreover, fossils have mostly be found in large stacks that does not support very well theory of evolution. And they also have found tropical orgasms in Poles, which actually supports the Bible's great flood more than theory of evolution.
And is there any development to be found? Maybe it is the gene mutations that make the orgasms to develop, but most of them cause death or invalidity and even the such developing ones (like that anemia that helps against malaria), will practically make their hosts weaker.
If there is a bird race on island that contains both black and white birds and they were moved to more darker island where the white birds can be spotted easier by predators, would the race develop like theory of evolution suggests? No, white birds would die and along with them the genes that make their feathers white, so the bird race would have less genes left. Sure, black birds would dominate as they are not so easily seen by predators but if those black birds were moved to lighter island they become extinct or at least threatened. Sounds like they are developing?
By the way, Darwin was not the first one to make up the theory of evolution some scientists (or should I call them philosophers?) in ancient Greek came up with that theory thousands of years ago before Darwin was even born. None just believed into them as there was more sensible and reliable theory, which was ironically proven wrong by putting clothe on the pile of mud from where the flies should have born.
Yet, such false, unproven theories are teached today in most schools, why? Because scientists haven't come with better theories and religions are not even considered to be correct or even option by many scientists.
Now I will jump into another matter to bring this thread into the chaos. How is wisdom that relies on moral defined to really be wisdom rather than just foolishness? As we know it such things as moral has nothing to do with materials that could be tested by scientific methods. Wisdom is generally considered to be ability to judge and understand things. What decides what is wrong or right then? People. And minds of people are affected by culture, religions, media, might, et cetare. Even today's view of people, even in democratic nations, are largely affected by fear and might, among other things and feelings. So is people the right source to judge such things what is wrong and what is right? Definitely, because we can so why we shouldn't. Is total freedom possible to achieve? Only in your mind.
I think I've had written enough for now. That's the problem in this philosophical questions and matters, it is like trying to write your whole mind on the paper which is sort of impossible. Discussing is a lot easier. And I noticed that I didn't made any clear opinion to the original matter. Well, science give good answers to some questions and religion gives good answers to others. We are to judge whether they are good or not.
____________
|
|
bjorn190
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Jebus maker
|
|
posted October 19, 2002 04:04 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Like i said, give me one Piece of evidence that God exists. One SOLID peice of information that god exists......
What your saying is:
"Use my religon to proove that your religion is right"
Thats like saying:
"Hey! Show me ONE passage in the old testament that tells me that humans were created through evolution"
You are all to blind,
to see,
that you are blind.
Have a nice dream 
|
|
bort
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Discarded foreskin of morality
|
|
posted October 19, 2002 04:11 PM |
|
|
Quote:
And is there any development to be found? Maybe it is the gene mutations that make the orgasms to develop, but most of them cause death or invalidity and even the such developing ones (like that anemia that helps against malaria), will practically make their hosts weaker.
Is this a freudian slip? That's where you think one thing and say a mother.
|
|
HeyYou
Known Hero
and beloved food provider.
|
posted October 19, 2002 04:52 PM |
|
|
Quote:
How can scientists claim to know that the world has existed billions of years? It is just a theory and largely relies on fossil finds and some vague experiments made by different methods, and not to mention made by methods that are difficult to prove to be true.
I guess you're unfamiliar with radioactive decay.
Certain elemental isotopes decay at a steady, measurable rate, leaving behind other elements that also might decay (this depends on which element/isotope is decaying). By studying the "leftovers", it's possible to determine how much of the original isotope was there, and how long it has been decaying.
If you require proof that certain elements deay, give off radiation and transform into other elements, go visit your local nuclear power plant.
BTW: There aren't any known fossils to be billions of years old. As far as we can tell, life didn't exist back then; the conditions on the planet were not yet suitable.
Pop Quiz
If Noah actually did build a really big boat, collect a pair of every creature on Earth (that idea alone is ridiculous beyond rationality), manage to get them all on board (dinosaurs included?), keep them isolated so the carnivores wouldn't eat the herbivores, and let them all loose when the flood was over:
1. Did he also collect all of the fish, or did he just leave them there because they could swim anyhow? (Please cite scripture to support your answer.)
2. Did he just drop them all off at the same place when the flood was over? (Again, please cite scripture to support your answer.)
2a. If so, why aren't all animals on all continents?
2b. If not, how did he get them dispersed to all of the different continents?
Extra Credit
Wouldn't the termites have eaten holes in the ark?
And how about the woodpeckers?
____________
"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity."
~ Hanlon's Razor
|
|
Lith-Maethor
Honorable
Legendary Hero
paid in Coin and Cleavage
|
posted October 19, 2002 05:45 PM |
|
|
S vs R...
can there be a winner? both sides have their flaws... with religion (at least christianity) you get the "comsic aliby" ...when you ask something like "why did (close person) have to die?" ...9 out of 10 times, the answer is "the Lord works in mysterious ways" ...with science, you get chaotic order... rules exist until somebody proves them wrong in the end, it is all a matter of belief... personally, I think religion and science do not exclude one another...
____________
You are suffering from delusions of adequacy.
|
|
bjorn190
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Jebus maker
|
|
posted October 20, 2002 12:24 AM |
|
|
If we say science and other religions Vs Sex then sex wins.
sex sex sex sex sex sex sex sex sex sex sex sex sex sex sex sex sex sex sex sex sex sex sex sex sex sex sex sex sex sex sex sex sex sex sex sex sex sex sex sex sex sex sex sex sex sex sex sex sex sex sex sex sex sex
S E X
|
|
Aculias
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Pretty Boy Angel Sacraficer
|
|
posted October 20, 2002 12:33 AM |
|
|
SHe blinded me with SCIENCE!!!, (Old Man) She blinded me with science, & now shes making love to me.
It's just an emotion 
Go Tommy Dolby go lol
____________
Dreaming of a Better World
|
|
2XtremeToTake
Promising
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted October 20, 2002 04:04 AM |
|
|
Science vs Religion?
Nerds vs Religious Monks.......
They both suck
____________
I almost had a psychic girlfriend but she left me before we met.
|
|
Mad_Unicorn
Famous Hero
I am a mean person shame on me
|
|
posted October 20, 2002 06:23 AM |
|
|
Okay atleast we realize that science is flawed simply because people are flawed yes?
Same token religion is flawed simply because people are flawed since people wrote the writings that people believe in 
And to dargon i am sorry i will try to make more unintelligent observations from now like .... Bush looks like a mushroom cloud thats why he likes nukes 
____________
I guess with my way thinking I would be going to hell. Good thing I dont believe in it.
|
|
dArGOn
Famous Hero
|
|
posted October 20, 2002 07:46 AM |
|
|
Quote
“But the power of science lies in the methodological ways of gathering and processing information, so that the human bias (or fragility as you call it) is reduced to a minimum.”
Theoretically it could be a minimum, but realistically the second that you introduce a human observer the observation is impacted and thus not truly objective. Add to that, most people including scientists have world views, personal experience, political agendas, etc. and you have a really clouded objective science indeed.
Quote
“Like i said, give me one Piece of evidence that God exists. One SOLID peice of information that god exists......”
What type of evidence would you like? A video, a picture, a notary to witness his signature matches his drivers license?
To paraphrase the words of another great philosopher…the best evidence for God lies in examining the awesome universe around us and the perplexing moral law within us. In my opinion both shout “there is a God.” Add to that the historical fact that multi-million/billions of people have/had a strong belief in a God….if it was merely a fairy tale or wishful thinking than a large if not majority of humans have been and continue to be psychiatrically delusional. If many if not most people are certifiably delusion….wow watch out
|
|
Mad_Unicorn
Famous Hero
I am a mean person shame on me
|
|
posted October 20, 2002 08:51 AM |
|
|
well to what the quote said.....
Millions / Billions of people believe in GOD for a very simple reason... MOST children believe in what their parents believe in.(I will not say all) The values are instilled to the child by the parent.
NOW if the people from the dawn of man believed in GOD(or reasonable facsimili) they would instill their beliefs into their children.(correct me when i am wrong) Over the course of mankind(inbreeding galore according to the bible) GOD has been predominant untill more "thinkers" came to be and asked a simple question "Why?" and since their parents couldn't explain...(as they long forgot how thier own belief came to be)The child became distant from the parent and pursued his own explanations. The children of these people now had both GOD and rational questions about it. To present day this still exists but with MANY different religions.
NOW children have mixed beliefs and form radical religions ie; mormonism, satanism, etc... Thus splitting the belief system of the world into a million different segments. This one commandment "Tho shalt have no other GOD before ME" is a confusing one and gets people asking who is right?.
JUST because a billion people believe in a "GOD" does NOT mean its right just popular. NOBODY can disprove gods existence or non existence. (I have tried)
Science is just another religion that is comprised mainly of the "thinker" type i told about earlier. They seek the answers to the unexplainable. They refuse to believe that it is a master plan as it is too chaotic to be one.
I still say we should somehow evolve past them both well actually past them all.
sry if this may come across as unintelligent or intelligent dargon
____________
I guess with my way thinking I would be going to hell. Good thing I dont believe in it.
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted October 20, 2002 10:12 PM |
|
|
Quote:
“Like i said, give me one Piece of evidence that God exists. One SOLID peice of information that god exists......”
What type of evidence would you like? A video, a picture, a notary to witness his signature matches his drivers license?
That would be handy yes
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Sir_Stiven
Honorable
Legendary Hero
banned
|
|
posted October 20, 2002 10:16 PM |
|
|
Quote:
JUST because a billion people believe in a "GOD" does NOT mean its right just popular. NOBODY can disprove gods existence or non existence. (I have tried)
hmmmm...im quite sure i saw a drivers license with the name God on it once...
|
|
Lews_Therin
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted October 20, 2002 11:23 PM |
|
|
Quote:
To paraphrase the words of another great philosopher…the best evidence for God lies in examining the awesome universe around us and the perplexing moral law within us. In my opinion both shout “there is a God.”
For a "great philosopher", this is badly logically flawed. If the universe requires an intelligent designer that you call "god", then wouldn´t your god require an intelligent designer, too?
Besides, even if there were such an intelligent designer, that were no reason at all to believe in an absurdity like the Christian god.Quote:
Add to that the historical fact that multi-million/billions of people have/had a strong belief in a God…
Add to that the historical fact that millions/billions of people were murdered and oppressed in the name of that god. It must either lack the power or the benevolentness to do something about it.Quote:
if it was merely a fairy tale or wishful thinking than a large if not majority of humans have been and continue to be psychiatrically delusional.
First of all, how many hundreds of generations have believed that there was a sun-god and a wind-god and a thunder-god? Does this mean that these gods have to be existant, too?
You say it, psychiatrically delusional comes quite close to what medical science has found about the brains of people with strong "religious experiences". But as Mad Unicorn already pointed out, most Christians are just victims of early childhood indoctrination.
Quote:
It would change many peoples worldview if they knew that science is very limited...limited by our own human fraility
Of course science is far from perfect - we humans are nothing but animals, it´s self-explanatory that our brains are very limited! You are right to be a skeptic about science, but then you must be consequent and treat a myth book from 2000 years ago with the same rationality.
____________
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
|
posted October 21, 2002 12:59 AM |
|
|
I was playing a 1st person shooter game with some friends and one of them named themselves God and whenever he shot someone a few people would say we have to kill God, and it was just funny to hear. Maybe you just had to be there.
____________
|
|
bort
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Discarded foreskin of morality
|
|
posted October 21, 2002 01:12 AM |
|
|
|
Well Brett Favre got injured. Pretty good evidence against the existence of God if you ask me.
|
|
Wub
Responsible
Famous Hero
|
|
posted October 21, 2002 03:25 AM |
|
Edited By: Wub on 20 Oct 2002
|
"Theoretically it [the human bias] could be a minimum, but realistically the second that you introduce a human observer the observation is impacted and thus not truly objective. Add to that, most people including scientists have world views, personal experience, political agendas, etc. and you have a really clouded objective science indeed."
I can agree with what you said here, dArGOn, though you think that science is a lot 'cloudier' than I think it is. True, science is probably not for the full 100% objective, but it comes close in my opinion, or at least it tries to be as objective as possible. And I don't think you would deny most of the knowledge that science has given us. I mean, science is represented in the very car you drive in or the computer you are looking at right now. I understand that you were talking more about 'social science' when you said that human observers can impact the observation, but even in social science you can obtain pretty stable knowledge. Of course, I don't need to tell you about ('pure') experiments and the fact that human observers are not necessarily required to do an experiment. After all, your very profession of psychotherapist demands a lot of those information that is required by social science.
But when science starts making statements that are really in conflict with your religion, then I understand that you revolt against science. I can imagine that it is extremely annoying to hear that it is 'proven' that earth is 4600 million old, when you believe it was created only 10.000 years ago. But I don't see why religious persons would need to deny science as a whole. Why is science so clouded when taken in regard what it has meant for your very life?
One question for believers in an almighty God has always fascinated me:
Can God create a stone, which is so heavy that He cannot lift it?
I would be honestly interested to hear what a believer in an almighty God has to answer on that.
____________
|
|
Snogard
Known Hero
customised
|
posted October 21, 2002 05:14 AM |
|
|
Just for causing chaos.
Quote:
I mean, science is represented in the very car you drive in or the computer you are looking at right now.
These have been brought out a couple of times, but I am not sure if they are really valid arguments for science. Should we not separate technology from science in such a discussion. Er... I mean, how do we (or as a matter of fact, the inventor him/herself) know(s) that, for example, the Microwave Oven is not invented by the inventor, based on scientific knowledge, inspired by personal creativity and guided by spiritual faith?
Quote:
give me one Piece of evidence that God exists. One SOLID peice of information that god exists......
No offense, but why do you need one, and is one enough? Do you need a prove that there is no oxygen in the moon? If so, don't you need to go to the moon yourself or at least do some researches and/or logical deductions by yourself to be convince? I mean, is it just enough to take it from others? If so, why?
____________
Seize The Day.
|
|
Wub
Responsible
Famous Hero
|
|
posted October 22, 2002 04:15 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Er... I mean, how do we (or as a matter of fact, the inventor him/herself) know(s) that, for example, the Microwave Oven is not invented by the inventor, based on scientific knowledge, inspired by personal creativity and guided by spiritual faith?
Well, we don't exactly know that, Snogard. Although I reject the idea, I can perfectly imagine that one believes that it is god who lets scientists do discoveries. In many cases, science and religion can easily combine. For that reason, I do not understand why many religious people seem to at least partly reject science. Agreed, science may be somewhat 'limited' and 'clouded' but that does not necessarily mean that religion has more to offer.
____________
|
| |
|
|
