Science-Religion. Which wins?

Pre-College Topics High School Life
861

<p>I am always amused at the futility of evolution vs. creationism/science vs. religion debates. Both parties argue under the assumption that an omnipotent and omniscient being must operate within the confines of the laws of logic, as perceived by our limited minds. Then they have the audacity to believe they can disprove the existence of a supernatural being through logical reasoning, ignoring the possibilty that such a being could operate beyond the limitations of logic. It’s almost like peasants who expect their king to obey his own laws.</p>

<p>At any rate, the dead horse pleads for you all to stop beating it. When you die, you’ll learn the truth. Until then, be patient.</p>

862

<p>mifune, if somebody honestly believes that genesis is more valid then evolution, then there is no hope of being able to convince them otherwise</p>

<p>hahaha</p>

863

<p><a href=“http://acidcow.com/pics/20100622/funny_drawings_65.jpg[/url]”>http://acidcow.com/pics/20100622/funny_drawings_65.jpg&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>You’re fighting the wrong team.</p>

864

<p>mifune, the complete, exhaustive, list still does not give us anything remotely resembling a “continuous evolutionary progression”. It is deceptive to imply that it does.</p>

865

<p>thank you, pioneer jones! finally, someone who gets it!
they didn’t listen to my comment either though, so i doubt this is going anywhere.</p>

866

<p>I agree with you two. I’ve been trying to make that point for about 40 pages now. Or more specifically, the point that it isn’t justified to mock Theists because God “doesn’t fit into the laws of physics”.</p>

<p>If my Theist views can be respected and recognised as neither provable or disprovable, then I can move on to explaining my views on the subject of Evolution, or rather my skepticism of it.</p>

867

<p>Speaking of how tenative the theories on Human Evolution are:</p>

<p>[Lucy</a> Fossil Gets Jolted Upright By Big Man - Science News](<a href=“http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/60454/title/Lucy_fossil_gets_jolted_upright__by_Big_Man]Lucy”>http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/60454/title/Lucy_fossil_gets_jolted_upright__by_Big_Man)</p>

868

<p>Though i personally believe in modern theories of evolution [i think it’s pretty safe to say that it DID happen, in the way we think it did or otherwise], i see no reason why some higher being couldn’t have set it on motion and guided it. What galls me is that not only do people childishly conclude that because creationism is wrong [let’s face it- the early Hebrews, like the rest of the earth at the time, had no understanding of or need for evolutionist theory. science was basically nonexistent], God must not be real either. That there must be no higher being. But truthfully, if there IS such a higher being, wouldn’t it be arrogant to assume that our knowledge of the workings of the universe, time and space are on par with that of the being that created them, or is an intimate part of them or whatever, and that this being must also obey the laws of its own creation? Furthermore, would this being have the same emotions or plan or goals or morals [a human concept] as us? Perhaps the greater plan necessitates whatever evil there is in the world [evil and pain that are brought about BY US], or perhaps whatever being doesn’t care or has goals different from our own. This is madness. We are an arrogant, young race, with much to learn.</p>

<p>I feel like vehement atheists are just as ignorant as the vehemently religious. WE DON’T KNOW. We don’t know. Don’t try to prove a[n] [a]theist wrong when you yourself can’t know for sure </p>

<p>p.s.- PlattsburghLoser, that’s f***in hilarious.</p>

869

<p>^ I agree with that, though I draw a different conclusion as to whether evolution DID happen. My critical view of the theory is based on a number of problems I perceive in it, but not on my religion.</p>

870

<p>what are your guys’ theories on God’s creation/existence?</p>

<p>That’s like one question I’d die to know…but will probably NEVER find out.</p>

871

<p>I don’t think we can ever know. If God is simply another type of being [think: humans vs. ants], then I think it’s easy to imagine God being born in some manner. I mean, maybe ancient cultures got it right and there are many gods that are simply more powerful than us. We can make a habitat [like a terrarium] and populate it with already existing creatures that likely view us as gods in whatever capacity they can comprehend, and we’re getting to the point where we can even maybe create our own life. Is it possible that what we perceive as “God” is our God in a similar manner? </p>

<p>If God is a truly supreme being, then I picture God as having no beginning or end or creation: God simply is.</p>

872

<p>^ Agreed that there’s no way to “know”. Just taking His word for it, he gave his name as I AM, ie He doesn’t have a name because He simply is. Names are only needed to distinguish between two things.</p>

873

<p>My theories on god(s) existence? It doesnt. Logical proofs made on how god exists are based on false premises and anyone UNBIASED and with decent reasoning skills can pick those apart and form proofs that show its non-existence. Science plays a part in flouting scripture and anything that contradicts scientific fact. Genesis is just ancient false drivel regardless if someone reads it through metaphors or whatever. (mifune reposted something on this yesterday.) And there has been tens of thousands of DIFFERENT gods ever created so why are people that dont agree with you wrong and why is your god right? Why are the ancients gods considered wrong? But its only human for wanting the thing to exist but its so full of contradictions and fallacies that it just doesnt. but theists have been taught to believe in their religions god since infancy so recognizing the lack of truth is basically impossible.</p>

874

<p>^YOUR FACE does not exist!</p>

875

<p>Have you not listened to what anyone has said? Regardless of science, a god of some sort could potentially exist. If we assume that “God” created such things as the scientific laws you are purporting, then doesn’t it follow that “God” might not have to follow those rules?</p>

<p>I think you make idiotic assumptions when you wax eloquent about the scientific fallacies of scripture- obviously the entire world didn’t flood, and the earth, animals, etc. in 6 days. Ancient peoples did not have the scientific understanding that we do and tried to explain things they did not understand in the best way they could- through religion. </p>

<p>But this discussion isn’t about that. Or it shouldn’t be. Could a deity exist? Certainly. Whether or not this deity created the earth in six days or allowed Moses to part the Red Sea [both of which i do not believe occurred] should be debated elsewhere; that has no place in this discussion. You’re missing the key point: ** GOD AND RELIGION ARE NOT ONE AND THE SAME!!!** Our meager understanding of whatever deity there could be is limited to how we have interpreted it and added stupid dogmatic practices to it. What fallacies there are in religion- a HUMAN invention- do not preclude the existence of a higher being. Moreover, what lessons we CAN learn from religionS are invaluable- all religions, not just Christianity [and i think buddhism has quite a lot to offer, personally].</p>

<p>How bout I use a metaphor that Einstein used? </p>

<p>Imagine god as a vast library with books on every subject and in every language. We as humans are but a small child, who can merely wonder at the library’s vastness, and perhaps read a handful of books, and certainly only have a basic, superficial understanding of even those.</p>

876

<p>Mifune, I absolutely agree that evolution is a fact. Yet, there are people who make it a theory, which is why it is still considered a “theory”. Although it is as much of a fact as gravity, you will always have people prove otherwise (that is why it is still considered a theory). Evolution happens all around us. The diseases, the flu, animals, Drosophila, etc… Anybody who says evolution is false is merely blind for not realizing what is evolving around the world. Mutation, natural selection, etc… Though, I do believe that religion and evolution can coincide. That is why I say there should be no battle between the two.</p>

877

<p>^^Which is why there are so many “beliefs” in the world of who god is. Deity certaintly can exist, I totally agree with you. As for me, I do not believe in “religion” as for a deity itself, I’m still unsure. But who really knows? We’re only human, nobody knows what happens after we die; only the dead knows. So how about we just live life for the fullest and not worry about who God is or if there is a “God”.</p>

878

<p>^^^ I take a different conclusion than you on a number of those events, but I agree that the concept of a deity is independent of them.</p>

<p>^^ The problem is that in the things you listed no Evolution took place. We have observed no processes that, if continued indefinitely, could be expected to raise, say, fish to the level of reptiles. These processes may exist, but until they are demonstrated, and fossil evidence is presented to support the belief that they DID take place, I will still consider Evolution an unproven (and poorly supported) theory.</p>

879

<p>There are a bunch of separate arguments going on in this thread:</p>

<p>1: Whether the concept of anything like a “God” (in other words, something that is not itself bound by natural laws, and that initiated the natural laws and caused the universe to exist) is logically invalid.</p>

<p>The argument in favor of this is that a God leads to an infinite regression of what created the God, etc.</p>

<p>My counterargument is that any model of the universe leads to the same infinite regression.</p>

<p>Even vacuum fluctuations, which seem to indicate that matter can appear from nothing, leave the question of why they happen.</p>

<p>Either something put laws into place to govern their behavior, or these laws just exist without a cause, or they are not bound by laws.</p>

<p>In this argument I believe ksarmand, r0kAng3l, Baelor, Izzy Busy Bee, hahalolk, and I (MosbyMarion) fall on the side of “the concept of a God isn’t logically invalid”, while mifune, Adenine, and FoolFromHell fall on the other side “the concept of a God is logically invalid”.</p>

<p>2: Whether the concept of God shared by many religions is in fact supported by the evidence.</p>

<p>On this subject I haven’t had much to say, since I consider it to a be question that can only be fully answered by faith, and thus that there is not much use in arguing it in logical debate. Others may want to fill in their arguments and counterarguments. The main arguments I know of are:</p>

<p>God can’t be Omnipotent and Benevolent, since if he was there would be no evil.</p>

<p>God can’t be Omniscient, because if he were we would have no free will.</p>

<p>I don’t really know where everyone falls here, but those who were arguing it can speak up if they still want to.</p>

<p>3: Whether the scientific theory of Evolution is in fact supported by the evidence.</p>

<p>I believe I am the lone dissenter on this one, or at least the only one willing to argue.</p>

<p>My objections to the theory:</p>

<p>We have never observed upwards Evolution taking place in nature, to my best knowledge. Every example that has been presented to me has turned out on closer examination to be a case of downward or lateral adaptation, in which no new genetic information is produced.</p>

<p>We do not have fossil evidence of a evolutionary progression. When the found fossils are placed on the evolutionary tree, the branching points are notably lacking. A look at actual research, even that by die hard evolutionists, will show you that the claimed evolutionary timeline, far from being “overwhelmingly established fact”, is highly conjectural.</p>

<p>Traits exist which no reasonable evolutionary progression can be proposed, such as the Cleanerfish-Grouper relationship.</p>

<p>The only known mechanism for new genetic material being created is random mutation, essentially copy errors. Of these copy errors, far more are harmful than helpful. Thus the odds against a trait surviving and spreading must be further multiplied by the odds against the code for that trait being produced by random copy errors.</p>

<p>4: Finally, a side-argument: the age of the earth.</p>

<p>Evolution requires an extremely old age for the earth to support all those improbabilities. If the earth is proven to be relatively young, it is invalidated at once regardless of all the other factors.</p>

<p>Unfortunately, the methods used to determine the age of the earth are conflicted. Some phenomena would seem to require a young earth to prevent them from “running down”, while other things would seem to require vast amounts of time to have formed.</p>

<p>I consider it possible that either side is right, but further evidence is needed to decide.</p>

880

<p>

I think this question should not be asked at all. Science and Religion are not rivals, rather, they are like colleagues working together to lead humankind toward higher levels of living.
By ‘religion’ I don’t mean Catholicism or Taoism, I mean a kind of refinement, something like artistic taste. If Religion tells us to help the poor, worship the beauty, then we should hold fast to it. If religion tells us to obey the pope and be against Jews, then it’s right for some people to turn to other things, such as scientific research or sports.
Thus, if you think the belief of the existence of god is good for you, then believe it. If not, then bravely turn away from religion. Persuading others to believe your belief is inappropriate.<br>
I myself however, prefer science in most cases. I remember an aphorism from Nietzsche that makes me shudder: 'Faith: not wanting to know what is true. ’ Well, I do want truth. Nowadays science is the field that is most productive in revealing truths. Therefore I am for science. But when I’ve got spare time, I listen to religious music, and read Fulton Sheen and N. T. Wright. Science and religion, generally speaking, do not contradict each other in my life.</p>