[Locked] Is Scientist really proving the Bible to be wrong?
0
Ah thank you for that rewording, I was going to ask him about that.
Not exactly a grammar nazi, but it wad making me squeamish.
And that's not really fact
As Rene Descartes said, ergo cato sum
I know I exist, but you could all be mere figments of mty imagination
Not exactly a grammar nazi, but it wad making me squeamish.
And that's not really fact
As Rene Descartes said, ergo cato sum
I know I exist, but you could all be mere figments of mty imagination
0
Gravity cat
the adequately amused
To be honest, Science has better things to do than to prove religion wrong all the time. Like curing diseases or how to more efficiently get into space.
0
But that would invalidate the second part.
If there is only one, there would be no other that would be unable to see what you see.
But I see what you are getting at, ill stop being annoying and nitpicking, cetlrtainly, views are one of the most diverse things
@cat
Science isn't necessarily proving religion wrong, its going along it's own path and it happens to conflict with religion is all
If there is only one, there would be no other that would be unable to see what you see.
But I see what you are getting at, ill stop being annoying and nitpicking, cetlrtainly, views are one of the most diverse things
@cat
Science isn't necessarily proving religion wrong, its going along it's own path and it happens to conflict with religion is all
0
Gravity cat
the adequately amused
@Manga - I know, that was my point xD Just wasn't all that clear...
0
@cat
Ah I see, sorry, I assumed, making an ass out if u and me
@darzu
They say walk in someone else's shoes, but that's nit really possible. You could go through all the same events but in the end you can't possibly empathize.
Kinda like religious and atheists
Nearly impossible to convert one to another because they always stay solid in their respective views
Ah I see, sorry, I assumed, making an ass out if u and me
@darzu
They say walk in someone else's shoes, but that's nit really possible. You could go through all the same events but in the end you can't possibly empathize.
Kinda like religious and atheists
Nearly impossible to convert one to another because they always stay solid in their respective views
0
Darzu wrote...
Fact: We live in a world in which we reside, what one may see, another may not.And also, semi-perfectionist as I am, I'll reword the thread title just for my own benefit because as of now it gets on my nerves.
"Are scientists really proving the Bible right?"
*Heaves a sigh*
I get it but, it is hard to reword it. What will you suggest.
The reason why I picked that title is because now a days some people claim religion and science as different things. With this, some people try to explain that God does not exist by claiming scientific facts. Some people use evolution as a reason why God can not exist because "the world cannot be created in 7 days. And humans first appeared as embryos".
And @Mangaexpert , I really appreciate the information you provide.
BigLundi wrote...
No, if you were to look at the wrds I used, yo'd see that I said that for 1, no, the churches DON'T support science, and 2, even if they did, they ought not, for good reason. No, your magazine article at a religiously bias website doesn't back up what you've said. The facts still remain as they are, The dark ages are a direct result of religion intentionally retarding scientific progress in favor of religious dogma.http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2006-winter/tragedy-of-theology.asp"1, no, the churches DON'T support science, and 2, even if they did, they ought not, for good reason." Doesn't this statements suggest you refuse to acknowledged that religious figures supported science even if you were given proof.
There are more sites than this that states the same information so don't say I can not support my reason with this site because you think it is a religiously bias site. Don't you think someone did their research to find this information? If you research the credits given, you will be led to "non religious bias" sites.
BigLundi wrote...
1. Science was built on a seperation from religion. Religion gave explanations for natural things by giving them supenratural meanings. Science decided to abandon these supernatural ideas and identify, and investigate the natural world as it is. The earliest mildly scientific advancements we can find is from the Greeks(not because of religion by the way}, and even then science didn't take off until the scientific method was outlined by Johannes Kepler, and according to Morris Kline, modern science owes its current state and its flourishing to Galileo Galilei, who, I've explained time and again, was NOT supported by the church, and his findings were NOT religiously motivated.What you keep on referring to is when King James gave scientist the building were they could experiment as much as possible without an interference from religious people. But, you still can't acknowledge that there was Science before that. Those who practiced science where very religious. And the science before the one you claim to be science made the foundation for the future scientists.
BigLundi wrote...
Yes, but it's not religion that's the case, it's simply the fact that you don't agree with my assessment of the situation, and you then try to attack my points by researching points to reinforce your own. That's how ALL debates and arguments are. The inclusion of religion is irrelevant. I will have to agree with you on this one....for ones
BigLundi wrote...
"What I was saying is common sense, you should be able to understand it."That's basically what you just aid. In other words, let me paraphrase furthur, "Listen, I'm right about this, and that's just the fact."
I'm sorry, but that kind of argument is hardly worth responding to.
So what you call common sense is a one paragraph response you find from wiki?...good to know
"Listen, I'm right about this, and that's just the fact."...aren't you using this more than me?
BigLundi wrote...
I didn't say "argue" did I? I said ask questions. What if you heard one of these so called 'facts' of yours incorrectly? What if they phrased something confusedly, and you took it the wrong way? Shouldn't you ask for a clarification? It doesn't seem you had any interest in discerning what you've been told to be true, you simply accepted that these people were telling you facts. That's...not how intelligent inquiry works...."And by the way, why would you simply accept everything your teachers, friends, and professors say without challenging it?"
Correct me on this but isn't that the same thing as arguing?
On a side note, since I am sure you are getting tired of my view point of religion, about you watch this guy. http://www.ted.com/talks/billy_graham_on_technology_faith_and_suffering.html
0
Takerial wrote...
For the love of all that is holy.Science and Religion are two entirely separate concepts that use entirely separate forms of support. You cannot use one for the other and they exist for different reasons. They both have their place and just because you have one does not mean you have to sacrifice from the other. In fact, it's actually best to embrace both as they give you a more full answer to life.
Anyone who feels it has to be one or the other is beyond a fool and anyone who feels it's weak to have one is devastatingly close-minded.
Takarial says all that is needed to be said...
-1
Anthrax wrote...
Takerial wrote...
For the love of all that is holy.Science and Religion are two entirely separate concepts that use entirely separate forms of support. You cannot use one for the other and they exist for different reasons. They both have their place and just because you have one does not mean you have to sacrifice from the other. In fact, it's actually best to embrace both as they give you a more full answer to life.
Anyone who feels it has to be one or the other is beyond a fool and anyone who feels it's weak to have one is devastatingly close-minded.
Takarial says all that is needed to be said...
Well,Science and Religion are not two entirely seperate concepts
In fact, they are based off the same roots
And they were pretty well in sync until the last few centuries
Even up to the 1600s, it was pretty well mutual relationship
0
Mangaexpert wrote...
A question i would like to ask the SecularsIf evolution holds true, where did our advanced thinking and sense of morals come from? Since survival of the fittest holds true, why are people the way they are now, with an extraordinary developed thinking ability, whereas everything else on earth pretty much follows instinct?
for the same reason that birds can fly and fish can swim. human adapted and evolved. logic is a trait which allows us to dominate. and we're aren't the only race with advanced thinking. the same can be said for a lot of mammals.
0
No, its not necessarily just merely logic that allowed us to dominate
Advanced thinking in animals?
What, a monkey washing a potato?
Lets face it, animals are all around the same level of intellect.
That is to say, pretty dumb.
And like I said
What about ethics and moral?
Those are the opposite of logic.
Ethics and moral are the very reasons why we are the opposite of survival of the fittest, which logically should be predominant in our world.
Advanced thinking in animals?
What, a monkey washing a potato?
Lets face it, animals are all around the same level of intellect.
That is to say, pretty dumb.
And like I said
What about ethics and moral?
Those are the opposite of logic.
Ethics and moral are the very reasons why we are the opposite of survival of the fittest, which logically should be predominant in our world.
0
Mangaexpert wrote...
No, its not necessarily just merely logic that allowed us to dominateAdvanced thinking in animals?
What, a monkey washing a potato?
Lets face it, animals are all around the same level of intellect.
That is to say, pretty dumb.
And like I said
What about ethics and moral?
Those are the opposite of logic.
Ethics and moral are the very reasons why we are the opposite of survival of the fittest, which logically should be predominant in our world.
First of all altruism, the act of doing something that does not benefit you at all but instead benefits someone else exists in a lot of species other then humans. Secondly it can be explained by science as well as a multitude of other social behaviors. Thirdly do you really believe that a theory a bloke (Darwin) came up with 200 years ago by studying birds on islands would apply to everything? It's not like they went like "oh hey let's stop thinking about evolutionary biology, this Darwin fellow has got everything figured out..." Lastly, of all animals in the world humans are the most fun one to study so there's really a lot of research done. But it's harder to read and think then hearing someone say that god did it.
What you can learn about god from science:
“The Creator, if He exists, has a special preference for beetles.” - J.B.S Haldane 1892-1964
The only thing i can think of that can't be explained by biology is why there is sex. But that's not something normal people go around wondering about.
Mangaexpert wrote...
Lets face it, animals are all around the same level of intellect.
And this just hurts to read. Say you had a son that were like 3 years, would it be alright if someone squashed him if they got annoyed with him, using the logic that he's more stupid then some monkeys and monkeys are apparently about the same level as a cockroach so there's no harm done right? You only lost someone that were below the mental level of a pest.
0
First of all, altruism can be explained in animals
certain type of amoebas do indeed sacrifice themselves for the rest of the colony
But that's once again a survival mechanism hardwired in their instincts
What I meant was, for example, if someone saw a hobo on the street, and felt sorry for it, they'd give him aid
Animals don't do that, most have very little notion of pathos
If it can be explained by science, then please explain it with science
I only brought up Darwin because that was the most common
and I don't see how your fourth argument applies to what I said
Your next two paragraphs are subjective so I will not rebut those
As to the 3 year old
Indeed, a young one has a low level of intellect. But whereas the child has the potential of growing up very intelligent and even if he doesn't turn out to be a prodigy, he wont be as dumb as a monkey
He will go out and learn ans gain intellect far exceeding a monkey
Whereas a monkey, their max intellect is far below sub-par.
certain type of amoebas do indeed sacrifice themselves for the rest of the colony
But that's once again a survival mechanism hardwired in their instincts
What I meant was, for example, if someone saw a hobo on the street, and felt sorry for it, they'd give him aid
Animals don't do that, most have very little notion of pathos
If it can be explained by science, then please explain it with science
I only brought up Darwin because that was the most common
and I don't see how your fourth argument applies to what I said
Your next two paragraphs are subjective so I will not rebut those
As to the 3 year old
Indeed, a young one has a low level of intellect. But whereas the child has the potential of growing up very intelligent and even if he doesn't turn out to be a prodigy, he wont be as dumb as a monkey
He will go out and learn ans gain intellect far exceeding a monkey
Whereas a monkey, their max intellect is far below sub-par.
0
Well, some scientist just give facts and a very logical explanation about the happenings in the bible.
According to an article i read about, human evolution is impossible alone, unless someone gives a DNA to evolve and spread it out throughout humans.
So far religion and science has its own loopholes, inconsistencies etc. the truth is for the dialogues to come
According to an article i read about, human evolution is impossible alone, unless someone gives a DNA to evolve and spread it out throughout humans.
So far religion and science has its own loopholes, inconsistencies etc. the truth is for the dialogues to come
0
Mangaexpert wrote...
First of all, altruism can be explained in animalscertain type of amoebas do indeed sacrifice themselves for the rest of the colony
But that's once again a survival mechanism hardwired in their instincts
What I meant was, for example, if someone saw a hobo on the street, and felt sorry for it, they'd give him aid
Animals don't do that, most have very little notion of pathos
If it can be explained by science, then please explain it with science
I only brought up Darwin because that was the most common
and I don't see how your fourth argument applies to what I said
Your next two paragraphs are subjective so I will not rebut those
As to the 3 year old
Indeed, a young one has a low level of intellect. But whereas the child has the potential of growing up very intelligent and even if he doesn't turn out to be a prodigy, he wont be as dumb as a monkey
He will go out and learn ans gain intellect far exceeding a monkey
Whereas a monkey, their max intellect is far below sub-par.
There's plenty of cases where animals care of other animals that they are not related to, it doesn't happen to often though but the same goes for humans, I know I wouldn't help anyone. There is however a simple reason why most animals doesn't help each others. If you are familiar with game theory such as the prisoners dilemma. Where we have 2 prisoners who have done a crime and they are faced with the option of either being silent or confessing.
A: If both stay silent they will serve two month each
B: If one confesses he will go free and the other one get's a year
C: And if both confesses they will get 5 months each.
Sticking together and being silent would be the best option, but if you think your friend is gonna be silent you can go free by crossing him! But then again if both try and do that both will lose. But if you think about it you can't exactly lose to your friend if you always betray him and if he shows any weakness and tries to cooperate with you you can just abuse that and win. Which is pretty much along the lines of survival of the fittest. So even if cooperation is favorable there's often a barrier preventing that behavior to evolve. Wikipedia probably beats me at explaining game theory if you don't get my point, me not being English isn't really helping either.
If individuals who cooperate are more successful then those that don't and if there's some sort of system in place or circumstance that allows the ones that don't cooperate to be punished for abusing others good will then you get a species that helps each other. Such as humans, primates, meerkats or even dolphins who will risk their lives to help other species.
0
Animals taking care of other animals
That doesn't happen, and when it does it is extremely rare, except in cases of mutualism, like alligators and birds, where both sides use each other
on the other hand, charities like amnesty international handle billions of dollars donated from rolled around the world. Also we have millions of cases where people do a surprising good deed. Simultaneously we have thousands doing heinous deeds everyday, and even if certain species do steal food, what species even comes close to the complexity and ambiguity that mankind
has? Only humans have complex natures and psychology and you say you wouldn't help others, but I say even if I knew I was probably going to get a year, I would not betray anyone. And there are tons of people who will take your side and tons of people who will take my aide, but the very division proves the complex nature of humans
That doesn't happen, and when it does it is extremely rare, except in cases of mutualism, like alligators and birds, where both sides use each other
on the other hand, charities like amnesty international handle billions of dollars donated from rolled around the world. Also we have millions of cases where people do a surprising good deed. Simultaneously we have thousands doing heinous deeds everyday, and even if certain species do steal food, what species even comes close to the complexity and ambiguity that mankind
has? Only humans have complex natures and psychology and you say you wouldn't help others, but I say even if I knew I was probably going to get a year, I would not betray anyone. And there are tons of people who will take your side and tons of people who will take my aide, but the very division proves the complex nature of humans
0
Scientific explanations for events described in the Bible in no way constitute "proof" of anything. All it does is show that said events could possibly have happened within the context of modern science.
1
Mangaexpert wrote...
Anthrax wrote...
Takerial wrote...
For the love of all that is holy.Science and Religion are two entirely separate concepts that use entirely separate forms of support. You cannot use one for the other and they exist for different reasons. They both have their place and just because you have one does not mean you have to sacrifice from the other. In fact, it's actually best to embrace both as they give you a more full answer to life.
Anyone who feels it has to be one or the other is beyond a fool and anyone who feels it's weak to have one is devastatingly close-minded.
Takarial says all that is needed to be said...
Well,Science and Religion are not two entirely seperate concepts
In fact, they are based off the same roots
And they were pretty well in sync until the last few centuries
Even up to the 1600s, it was pretty well mutual relationship
Only because the church controlled everything. Science would have always developed whether religion existed or not. They may both have originated from the same line of thinking but that's where the similarities stop. Science uses experimentation and observation to try and prove their line of thinking. Religion does not.
Science did not move forward because of religion. It did because humans, religious or not, began to question and wonder how things actually worked. The only reason they had a mutual relationship for so long was because science was still in its infancy and it obviously wasn't strong enough to disprove most of the religious and ancient views that prevailed at that time.