DeletedUser
Guest
let me find that out for you...
heres a link
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Well,+what+is+science?+ Does+it+have+to+do+anything+with+material+progress?
let me find that out for you...
heres a link
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Well,+what+is+science?+ Does+it+have+to+do+anything+with+material+progress?
DeletedUser
Guest
Well, just because someone is faithful/religious doesn't mean you should talk bad about them. Everyone is entitled to believe what they want. As long as they don't bug me about it (unless I show clear interest, like when Jehova's witnesses are at my doorstep and I invite them in to talk) or get in my way, then it's fine with me. In a way, I envy religious people sometimes, as they have all the thinking done for them already. No trouble with questions like "What's the meaning of life?". It'll be just "Oh, I'll just check in the book. There we go, good to know.". Easy ey.
DeletedUser
Guest
:icon_rolleyes:
DeletedUser
Guest
dont roll ur eyes at me!
DeletedUser75819
Guest
Why is everyone trying to prove thirsty wrong?
I mean, I'm an atheist, don't get me wrong, but I do not feel the need to attempt to convert him/her.
Truthfully, he/she is an atheist, too, but I just believe in one less god than he/she does.
I mean, I'm an atheist, don't get me wrong, but I do not feel the need to attempt to convert him/her.
Truthfully, he/she is an atheist, too, but I just believe in one less god than he/she does.
DeletedUser
Guest
As a student of science I am also a devout Catholic.
Anyone who wants a chat about some things I feel science is incapable/unable to explain, feel free to PM me or something
Anyone who wants a chat about some things I feel science is incapable/unable to explain, feel free to PM me or something
DeletedUser
Guest
Actually, that's sorta the point of the thread. Not the converting, but that's not even going on. Just discussing the opposites. It'd be the same as asking why thirsty is trying to prove atheists wrong. It's just not the right question to ask in a discussion thread...
As for you, kdspuhler, why don't you post your views here? What makes you so special that anyone has to go through the trouble of PM'ing you to hear your personal view on things?
DeletedUser
Guest
Your name kinda looked familiar for a second.
What? :icon_neutral:
They can't convert me
DeletedUser
Guest
Well hey, according to Spinoza:
God = Nature (note the capital 'N') - perfect intellect; adequate conception of himself, thus, the existence of God; always good - acting according to essence (w/c have the necessity & order)
+
God is incapable of love/other feelings/emotions/attributes - as 'love' is a human attribute
+
There is only one substance, and that is God/Nature. Everything is but a manifestation/mode of the infinite and eternal substance.
Also, religion you say? Meh. Dig 'em to grave. Philosophical view > Religion fallacy.
God = Nature (note the capital 'N') - perfect intellect; adequate conception of himself, thus, the existence of God; always good - acting according to essence (w/c have the necessity & order)
+
God is incapable of love/other feelings/emotions/attributes - as 'love' is a human attribute
+
There is only one substance, and that is God/Nature. Everything is but a manifestation/mode of the infinite and eternal substance.
Also, religion you say? Meh. Dig 'em to grave. Philosophical view > Religion fallacy.
DeletedUser
Guest
Sorry I'm kinda late on this thread but as a devout Catholic and a molecular biology major, I feel I really see both sides of this.
As a scientist, my job is to look at data and evidence empirically and draw hypotheses. After testing these hypotheses, I refine them into a conclusion. That is how the human mind has been conditioned to think Question>Data Analysis>Hypothesis>Test>More analysis>Conclusion. I'll talk about why this "Scientific Method" is important to religion in a bit.
Okay so first let me pose the question, "Are my religious beliefs true?"
So now I have some data from the Bible:
1) Jesus' life accurately follows 324 individually made (non-collaborative) Messianic Prophecies.
2) The Bible contains scientific statements thousands of years ahead of its time (Earth is round, Earth is not resting on a surface, hydrothermal ocean vents).
3) Several noncollaborative works (Gospels) chronicle Jesus' life accurately and consistantly.
We also have some pitfalls in the scientific theorems which create this perceived war between religion and science:
1a) What caused the Big Bang? What caused this event, then what caused that, what caused that.....what caused that?
We can question an infinite amount of times what caused the events leading up to the Universe's creation. As nothing has existed for an infinite amount of time, these infinite events did not have sufficient time to occur. Therefor the only logical solution to this question is a source of omniscience.
2a) Evolutionism- My my my I could write paragraphs about this:
Basically (getting semantics out of the way) there are two types of evolution, microevolution and macroevolution.
Microevolution is something no one can debate, microevolution is simply adaptation. If I take a culture of E Coli and pour ampicillin on it, 99% will die and any with a plasmid allowing ampicillin resistance live. Therefor the culture underwent microevolution.
Macroevolution is Species A becoming Species B. It has never been observed scientifically and is expected to occur via the compilation of countless microevolutionary events over time.
^ Evolution refers to these two terms collectively.
Evolutionism is the theory that speciation occurred by evolution. So now we have 4 distinct terms and I guarantee that 80% of the people on TW just doubled their knowledge of biology.
Now the reasons I disagree with evolutionism:
1b) Laws of evolution state Species A---> Species B because B is more fit than A to survive. Now this happens VERY VERY VERY slowly as it is the combination of countless microevolutionary changes. Now via the model of evolution species of reptiles became birds and their from arms slowly became wings over millions of years. My question to you: Wouldn't the intermediate species between the lizard and the bird be phased out as it could not walk swim or fly with half wing/ half arm limbs? It could not aqquire food nor escape predators.
2b) Cambrian Explosion- Basically, eukaryotic life just instantly appears in the fosile record.It would take a MASSIVE amount of time for the nearly infinite differences between prokarya and eukarya to develope. Where is this time in the fosile record? It certainly is not the two inch gap of sediment between cyanobacterium and mammals.
Now my personal hypothese given this data is that:
1) The authors of the Bible had some greater knowledge we do not, as they were able to independently write over 300 prophecies consistent with each other despite never speaking to one another nor reading each other's works (written in different languages over a 1500 year period and as each cronicles different parts of Jesus' life they would not have influenced each other).
2) Religious texts can be a partially accurate way to understand nature.
1a) Science is not a complete system and cannot fully explain some phenomenon.
2a) Modern evolutionism has serious pitfalls which cannot be explained without the existance of miracles and intelligent design.
Now I have my hypothesis that something greater than us (God) has been cognisantly active throughout our existance. These actions, coupled with sound scientific knowledge, accurately descirbe our Universe. Going back to 1) I feel Christianity has been chronicled and documented well enough for me to believe in it.
Now this next part is why I feel many people have trouble believing. I cannot experiment and test the existance of God. Therefor within the realm of Science I cannot "conclude" God exists. So I am stuck with my Theory of God, although it is based on a significant wealth of evidence.
...bear in mind we are also stuck with the Theory of Gravity, no experiment has yet to confirm its existance or its method of work, but I and everyone else believe in it.
As a scientist, my job is to look at data and evidence empirically and draw hypotheses. After testing these hypotheses, I refine them into a conclusion. That is how the human mind has been conditioned to think Question>Data Analysis>Hypothesis>Test>More analysis>Conclusion. I'll talk about why this "Scientific Method" is important to religion in a bit.
Okay so first let me pose the question, "Are my religious beliefs true?"
So now I have some data from the Bible:
1) Jesus' life accurately follows 324 individually made (non-collaborative) Messianic Prophecies.
2) The Bible contains scientific statements thousands of years ahead of its time (Earth is round, Earth is not resting on a surface, hydrothermal ocean vents).
3) Several noncollaborative works (Gospels) chronicle Jesus' life accurately and consistantly.
We also have some pitfalls in the scientific theorems which create this perceived war between religion and science:
1a) What caused the Big Bang? What caused this event, then what caused that, what caused that.....what caused that?
We can question an infinite amount of times what caused the events leading up to the Universe's creation. As nothing has existed for an infinite amount of time, these infinite events did not have sufficient time to occur. Therefor the only logical solution to this question is a source of omniscience.
2a) Evolutionism- My my my I could write paragraphs about this:
Basically (getting semantics out of the way) there are two types of evolution, microevolution and macroevolution.
Microevolution is something no one can debate, microevolution is simply adaptation. If I take a culture of E Coli and pour ampicillin on it, 99% will die and any with a plasmid allowing ampicillin resistance live. Therefor the culture underwent microevolution.
Macroevolution is Species A becoming Species B. It has never been observed scientifically and is expected to occur via the compilation of countless microevolutionary events over time.
^ Evolution refers to these two terms collectively.
Evolutionism is the theory that speciation occurred by evolution. So now we have 4 distinct terms and I guarantee that 80% of the people on TW just doubled their knowledge of biology.
Now the reasons I disagree with evolutionism:
1b) Laws of evolution state Species A---> Species B because B is more fit than A to survive. Now this happens VERY VERY VERY slowly as it is the combination of countless microevolutionary changes. Now via the model of evolution species of reptiles became birds and their from arms slowly became wings over millions of years. My question to you: Wouldn't the intermediate species between the lizard and the bird be phased out as it could not walk swim or fly with half wing/ half arm limbs? It could not aqquire food nor escape predators.
2b) Cambrian Explosion- Basically, eukaryotic life just instantly appears in the fosile record.It would take a MASSIVE amount of time for the nearly infinite differences between prokarya and eukarya to develope. Where is this time in the fosile record? It certainly is not the two inch gap of sediment between cyanobacterium and mammals.
Now my personal hypothese given this data is that:
1) The authors of the Bible had some greater knowledge we do not, as they were able to independently write over 300 prophecies consistent with each other despite never speaking to one another nor reading each other's works (written in different languages over a 1500 year period and as each cronicles different parts of Jesus' life they would not have influenced each other).
2) Religious texts can be a partially accurate way to understand nature.
1a) Science is not a complete system and cannot fully explain some phenomenon.
2a) Modern evolutionism has serious pitfalls which cannot be explained without the existance of miracles and intelligent design.
Now I have my hypothesis that something greater than us (God) has been cognisantly active throughout our existance. These actions, coupled with sound scientific knowledge, accurately descirbe our Universe. Going back to 1) I feel Christianity has been chronicled and documented well enough for me to believe in it.
Now this next part is why I feel many people have trouble believing. I cannot experiment and test the existance of God. Therefor within the realm of Science I cannot "conclude" God exists. So I am stuck with my Theory of God, although it is based on a significant wealth of evidence.
...bear in mind we are also stuck with the Theory of Gravity, no experiment has yet to confirm its existance or its method of work, but I and everyone else believe in it.
DeletedUser
Guest
The atomic bomb, chemical weapons, ranged weapons, handguns, Imperialism (fed by Social Darwinism), Chernobyl, Vietnam and Koreans wars (Fed by mutual fear between NATO and USSR), explosives, thalidomide, abortion....
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser
Guest
DeletedUser
Guest
The OP's question is a fail btw. Religion is real whether you believe in it or not
DeletedUser
Guest
A couple of your points I wanted to touch upon.Sorry I'm kinda late on this thread but as a devout Catholic and a molecular biology major, I feel I really see both sides of this.
As a scientist, my job is to look at data and evidence empirically and draw hypotheses. After testing these hypotheses, I refine them into a conclusion. That is how the human mind has been conditioned to think Question>Data Analysis>Hypothesis>Test>More analysis>Conclusion. I'll talk about why this "Scientific Method" is important to religion in a bit.
Okay so first let me pose the question, "Are my religious beliefs true?"
So now I have some data from the Bible:
1) Jesus' life accurately follows 324 individually made (non-collaborative) Messianic Prophecies.
2) The Bible contains scientific statements thousands of years ahead of its time (Earth is round, Earth is not resting on a surface, hydrothermal ocean vents).
3) Several noncollaborative works (Gospels) chronicle Jesus' life accurately and consistantly.
We also have some pitfalls in the scientific theorems which create this perceived war between religion and science:
1a) What caused the Big Bang? What caused this event, then what caused that, what caused that.....what caused that?
We can question an infinite amount of times what caused the events leading up to the Universe's creation. As nothing has existed for an infinite amount of time, these infinite events did not have sufficient time to occur. Therefor the only logical solution to this question is a source of omniscience.
2a) Evolutionism- My my my I could write paragraphs about this:
Basically (getting semantics out of the way) there are two types of evolution, microevolution and macroevolution.
Microevolution is something no one can debate, microevolution is simply adaptation. If I take a culture of E Coli and pour ampicillin on it, 99% will die and any with a plasmid allowing ampicillin resistance live. Therefor the culture underwent microevolution.
Macroevolution is Species A becoming Species B. It has never been observed scientifically and is expected to occur via the compilation of countless microevolutionary events over time.
^ Evolution refers to these two terms collectively.
Evolutionism is the theory that speciation occurred by evolution. So now we have 4 distinct terms and I guarantee that 80% of the people on TW just doubled their knowledge of biology.
Now the reasons I disagree with evolutionism:
1b) Laws of evolution state Species A---> Species B because B is more fit than A to survive. Now this happens VERY VERY VERY slowly as it is the combination of countless microevolutionary changes. Now via the model of evolution species of reptiles became birds and their from arms slowly became wings over millions of years. My question to you: Wouldn't the intermediate species between the lizard and the bird be phased out as it could not walk swim or fly with half wing/ half arm limbs? It could not aqquire food nor escape predators.
2b) Cambrian Explosion- Basically, eukaryotic life just instantly appears in the fosile record.It would take a MASSIVE amount of time for the nearly infinite differences between prokarya and eukarya to develope. Where is this time in the fosile record? It certainly is not the two inch gap of sediment between cyanobacterium and mammals.
Now my personal hypothese given this data is that:
1) The authors of the Bible had some greater knowledge we do not, as they were able to independently write over 300 prophecies consistent with each other despite never speaking to one another nor reading each other's works (written in different languages over a 1500 year period and as each cronicles different parts of Jesus' life they would not have influenced each other).
2) Religious texts can be a partially accurate way to understand nature.
1a) Science is not a complete system and cannot fully explain some phenomenon.
2a) Modern evolutionism has serious pitfalls which cannot be explained without the existance of miracles and intelligent design.
Now I have my hypothesis that something greater than us (God) has been cognisantly active throughout our existance. These actions, coupled with sound scientific knowledge, accurately descirbe our Universe. Going back to 1) I feel Christianity has been chronicled and documented well enough for me to believe in it.
Now this next part is why I feel many people have trouble believing. I cannot experiment and test the existance of God. Therefor within the realm of Science I cannot "conclude" God exists. So I am stuck with my Theory of God, although it is based on a significant wealth of evidence.
...bear in mind we are also stuck with the Theory of Gravity, no experiment has yet to confirm its existance or its method of work, but I and everyone else believe in it.
First, how can you be sure that the stories of Jesus in the Bible are accurate? I am sure you are well aware of the fact that not every Gospel that was written was included into the New Testament. The Gospels chosen were chosen because of their uniformity and their portrayal of Jesus in the manner in which the Council of Nicea decided was best. That of Jesus as a divine being, not a mortal. When you take into account the fact that Gospels written after Jesus' death were sometimes very varied in their portrayal of him, it sort of undermines your first point as well of his life following the Messianic Prophecies.
Second, in regards to your species question, as a biologist I would assume you know that after the demise of the dinosaurs the top animal on the food chain were large, predatory birds (Most likely descendants of theropods, especially the raptor group of theropods which had many species that were covered in feathers.) that neither flew, nor really used their arms much.
Another example would be the precedent to whales and dolphins. It had short , webbed limbs, the half-way point between limbs that were adept at moving across land and flippers.
If you classify the use of any technology as science killing a person, then you can count any unnatural death of a human being as being killed by science, from someone in a car accident, to the person whose head was hacked off with an axe in the midst of a medieval battle. However, a belief in science is not what killed these people, whereas religion has countless examples of people being killed because of, or killing other in the name of, religion.
DeletedUser
Guest
Pyker not you :icon_sad:
I know
The OP's question is a fail btw. Religion is real whether you believe in it or not
I know
DeletedUser
Guest
god is real, jesus is real, i hope everyone knows this, for the sake of your souls, religion is what it is, often it is a bunch of crap, but god is real, and so is hell, so i encourage everyone to get with god
DeletedUser
Guest
Was/Is god a male or female?..... Or non existant?
zakipoo
Guest
non-existant id belive lol...
eh im atheist
eh im atheist
DeletedUser
Guest
Well God is called The Father and also Jesus had an earthly mother. Dad+Mom= baby so I feel God is male.
DeletedUser
Guest
Thats just because "God" is the product of a male dominated religion.
EDIT: Hiya Thirsty. :lol:
EDIT: Hiya Thirsty. :lol:
