Science << vs >> Religion
First Prev
of 49
Next Last
JURY

Marietta, GA

#1 Nov 20, 2011
These two adversaries have been at war a long-long time. For most
of that long-long time it's been a cold war. the first real shot
was fired and the war became HOT when Galileo outwardly challenged the centric views of Christianity, building upon the views of Copernicus.

Galileo spent the last years of his life, from 1634 to 1642, under house arrest, labeled a dangerous maverick. His legacy has been lauded by luminaries such as Hawking and Einstein, as the birth of Modern science.
http://www.experiment-resources.com/religion-...

Does Religion Negate what Science Creates?

Webster defines "NEGATE" as a transitive verb;
1: to deny the existence or truth of
2: to cause to be ineffective or invalid

Human Ingenuity; why and how do humans create?
What are the consequences for humanity and the environment?

Humans alone are the ingenious species that have the capacity to create, transform, enjoy and improve the quality of life on Earth.

Has that proven to be good or bad for man and his environment?

In what way does religion aid or hinder human accomplishment?

This thread means to explore in multiple ways the processes and products of human creativity, and to consider their impact on society and the mind.... ALSO;

This thread means to explore in multiple ways the processes and products of human superstitions/religions, and to consider their impact on society and the mind.

Your Religious/Scientific input is encouraged and appreciated!
JURY

Marietta, GA

#2 Nov 20, 2011
Clarification of terms as used in this thread:

"SCIENCE" does not mean ANTI-GOD OR ATHEISM;
based on understanding that THEISM or GOD is
NOT religious nor a religion, by definition;

"RELIGION" here refers to human-made institutions
which deal with, delve into, and promote the ideas
that must involve a spirit world of metaphysics.

Thus, "RELIGION" may exist without the need of god(s).

Since: Oct 09

Location hidden

#3 Nov 20, 2011
Humans aren't the lone species creating, transforming, enjoying, and/or improving the planet; ants come readily to mind.

I'd say the environment takes the occasional body blow when humans get "creative"; the Almighty Dollar, ironic as it may seem, keeps the planet from taking a standing eight (8)-count.

Religion is a minor hindrance on many scientific fronts, but reality-based results keep winning the "hearts and minds" routine.

On the contrary: science negates what religion thinks it's created.
Frank Lee MyDear

Marietta, GA

#4 Nov 20, 2011
Frankly, religion seems to accentuate the negative,
and eliminate the positive, and teaches us never to
mess around with "Mr. In Between," ... I dare say!

For example, The Religious Teacher (Solomon) says,

“Meaningless! Meaningless!
Utterly meaningless!
Everything is meaningless.”

What does man gain from all his labor
at which he toils under the sun?
....
All things are wearisome,
more than one can say.

What has been will be again,
what has been done will be done again;
there is nothing new under the sun.

Is there anything of which one can say,
“Look! This is something new”?- Eccl 1 NIV

WELL! After that Breakfast of Fatalism I want to
just go back to bed and never wake up.... Hmmmff!

Warriors for SCIENCE, the innovative scientists say,

"That is a LIE! Man had never been to the moon before 1969. That's something 'new under the sun', Solomon!"

In fact, there are millions of new things due to human ingenuity, and even a whole new world never dreamed of by Solomon Etal, has evolved only by pure human effort!

Here is something brand new that would sure blow

"Ol' King Sol" away if he could get up to witness it!

It is surely, THE MOTHER OF ALL DOOHICKEYS!

And, I must say, "YOU WON'T BELIEVE YOUR EYES"

As you witness this AWESOME and AMAZING contraption.

It is totally fantaz-magically glorious!!!

(If there are children around, be sure that they get to see this marvel of human ingenuity!)

This is almost unbelievable. Please note, the balls don't fall on the floor, they return to the machine. It is a mind-blower just to See all the balls, without a hitch, wind up in the catcher cones, and, the music!

This incredible machine was built as a collaborative effort between the Robert M. Trammell Music Conservatory and the Sharon Wick School of Engineering at the University of Iowa.

Amazingly, 97% of the machine's components came from John Deere Industries and Irrigation Equipment of Bancroft , Iowa ..

Yes,... it was almost all made from standard farm equipment!

It took the team a combined 13,029 hours (6.26 years) of set-up, alignment, calibration, and tuning before filming this video but as you can see, it was WELL worth the effort.

It is now on display in the Matthew Gerhard Alumni Hall at the University, and already slated to be housed in the Smithsonian.

Set-up your best video and sound, get some popcorn and enjoy!
Hardie-Har-Har

Marietta, GA

#5 Nov 20, 2011
twinertia wrote:
Humans aren't the lone species creating, transforming, enjoying, and/or improving the planet; ants come readily to mind.
I'd say the environment takes the occasional body blow when humans get "creative"; the Almighty Dollar, ironic as it may seem, keeps the planet from taking a standing eight (8)-count.
Religion is a minor hindrance on many scientific fronts, but reality-based results keep winning the "hearts and minds" routine.
On the contrary: science negates what religion thinks it's created.
Hardie-Har-Har,

Hmm,... "ants", eh? Yeah Antworld is booming with progress!(LOL)

Okay, if you say so. But please, just don't say so again!

Of course human ingenuity and invention has
its trade-offs and downsides. What doesn't?

Drink too much water and you'll drown, eh?
Get too much sunshine and you'll burn, eh?

Yet, both are good and necessary innovations!

So you would prefer the "GOOD OL'(religiously run) DAYS???"

I think I know you better than that, Twin baby!

Hardie-Har-Har

Since: Oct 09

Location hidden

#6 Nov 20, 2011
Hardie-Har-Har wrote:
<quoted text>
Hardie-Har-Har,
Hmm,... "ants", eh? Yeah Antworld is booming with progress!(LOL)
Okay, if you say so. But please, just don't say so again!
Of course human ingenuity and invention has
its trade-offs and downsides. What doesn't?
Drink too much water and you'll drown, eh?
Get too much sunshine and you'll burn, eh?
Yet, both are good and necessary innovations!
So you would prefer the "GOOD OL'(religiously run) DAYS???"
I think I know you better than that, Twin baby!
Hardie-Har-Har
Yes, ants: over twenty thousand (20,000) species, been around longer than we have, and will stick around well after we've departed. A handful decide to build, and they create structures that we're only beginning to understand. They work far more efficiently than we do, as well.

You SHOULD know me better; why would anyone think I'd prefer the stifling bad ol' days, compared with where we're heading?
Hardie-Har-Har

Marietta, GA

#7 Nov 20, 2011
twinertia wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, ants: over twenty thousand (20,000) species, been around longer than we have, and will stick around well after we've departed. A handful decide to build, and they create structures that we're only beginning to understand. They work far more efficiently than we do, as well.
You SHOULD know me better; why would anyone think I'd prefer the stifling bad ol' days, compared with where we're heading?
Hardie-Har-Har,

Well Twin, we could argue those points, but we'd be way off thread context! Ants have no religion nor science, and the longevity thing
you argue is speculative and not meaningful. The Sun will do us all
in, including ants,... so what? We could turn blue-faced on this
type of semantic-like stuff,... ehh! Did Mary have a little lamb?

I'm glad you clarify the "bad ol days' and wish to stay with us!(lol)

You say, "compared with where we're heading?"

Now, THAT, I'd welcome you to elaborate a bit on, i.e., the "Where?"

Hardie-Har-Har

Since: Oct 09

Location hidden

#8 Nov 20, 2011
Hardie-Har-Har wrote:
<quoted text>
Hardie-Har-Har,
Well Twin, we could argue those points, but we'd be way off thread context! Ants have no religion nor science, and the longevity thing
you argue is speculative and not meaningful. The Sun will do us all
in, including ants,... so what? We could turn blue-faced on this
type of semantic-like stuff,... ehh! Did Mary have a little lamb?
I'm glad you clarify the "bad ol days' and wish to stay with us!(lol)
You say, "compared with where we're heading?"
Now, THAT, I'd welcome you to elaborate a bit on, i.e., the "Where?"
Hardie-Har-Har
Ants employ a type of biological science in terms of building habitat and defending it.

I see no reason why ants can't travel with us when we leave this solar system and colonize others. We've got a few billion years to make that happen!

And that's all a part of where we're heading; getting away from the sorry excuses of "God's will" to explore within and without.
Hardie-Har-Har

Marietta, GA

#9 Nov 20, 2011
twinertia wrote:
<quoted text>
Ants employ a type of biological science in terms of building habitat and defending it.
I see no reason why ants can't travel with us when we leave this solar system and colonize others. We've got a few billion years to make that happen!
And that's all a part of where we're heading; getting away from the sorry excuses of "God's will" to explore within and without.
Hey Bro Twin,... I agree and I think we are tuning up here!

I agree with you on many of your opinions. If not, then I have wasted a bunch of good "Judge-it" icons on your postings.

The ant comparison I reject, because of attainment methods. Ants can do naught else than what they are instinctively programmed to do, like all animal life. And that's the rub!

The human neo cortex is beyond nature and instinct. It is true nature-defiant genius, that sets man light years above any other species.

Genetic fallacy is a fallacy of irrelevance where a conclusion is suggested based solely on something or someone's origin rather than its current meaning or context. This overlooks any difference to be found in the present situation, typically transferring the positive or negative esteem from the earlier context.

The fallacy therefore fails to assess the claim on its merit.

The first criterion of a good argument is that the premises must have bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim in question. Genetic accounts of (for example) an apples-to-oranges type of comparison can be true, and they may help illuminate the reasons why the issue has assumed its present form, but they are irrelevant to its merits. to be relevant with the issue at hand such genetic accounts must be apple-to-apple-type comparison.

(According to the Oxford Companion to Philosophy, the term originates in Morris Raphael Cohen and Ernest Nagel's book Logic and Scientific Method.)

In other words, comparing man's inventiveness and ingenuity to the lowly ant or any other known species is comparable to, say, comparing the space shuttle tech to the tech of a donkey in the field of transportation. That's what you're doing, Twin.

The bio-engineering ability (science) of the ant will doubtless remain instinctively so and may be amazing to you. All animals have their instinctive quirks that amaze us, but they stay so and so!

Now, if you can show me the ant that's developed and packs a 357 magnum as a new warfare strategy, that'd be an apple!

Hardie-Har-Har
Punisher

Bronxville, NY

#10 Nov 20, 2011
WTF?

Since: Oct 09

Location hidden

#11 Nov 20, 2011
Hardie-Har-Har wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey Bro Twin,... I agree and I think we are tuning up here!
I agree with you on many of your opinions. If not, then I have wasted a bunch of good "Judge-it" icons on your postings.
The ant comparison I reject, because of attainment methods. Ants can do naught else than what they are instinctively programmed to do, like all animal life. And that's the rub!
The human neo cortex is beyond nature and instinct. It is true nature-defiant genius, that sets man light years above any other species.
Genetic fallacy is a fallacy of irrelevance where a conclusion is suggested based solely on something or someone's origin rather than its current meaning or context. This overlooks any difference to be found in the present situation, typically transferring the positive or negative esteem from the earlier context.
The fallacy therefore fails to assess the claim on its merit.
The first criterion of a good argument is that the premises must have bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim in question. Genetic accounts of (for example) an apples-to-oranges type of comparison can be true, and they may help illuminate the reasons why the issue has assumed its present form, but they are irrelevant to its merits. to be relevant with the issue at hand such genetic accounts must be apple-to-apple-type comparison.
(According to the Oxford Companion to Philosophy, the term originates in Morris Raphael Cohen and Ernest Nagel's book Logic and Scientific Method.)
In other words, comparing man's inventiveness and ingenuity to the lowly ant or any other known species is comparable to, say, comparing the space shuttle tech to the tech of a donkey in the field of transportation. That's what you're doing, Twin.
The bio-engineering ability (science) of the ant will doubtless remain instinctively so and may be amazing to you. All animals have their instinctive quirks that amaze us, but they stay so and so!
Now, if you can show me the ant that's developed and packs a 357 magnum as a new warfare strategy, that'd be an apple!
Hardie-Har-Har
Who, exactly, do you think has "programmed" ants? Are you saying these (and other) creatures haven't evolved their various abilities over time?

Obviously, humans are having greater impact upon their natural surroundings.

Funny you should mention the .357 Magnum, as certain species of ants pack a mean venom in their bites. It only takes seven (7) or eight (8) fire ant bites to send someone into shock and kill them. That's an evolved weapon that people are just now beginning to decipher.

“Life Force One”

Since: Mar 09

The Spiritual Universe

#12 Nov 20, 2011
twinertia wrote:
Humans aren't the lone species creating, transforming, enjoying, and/or improving the planet; ants come readily to mind.
I'd say the environment takes the occasional body blow when humans get "creative"; the Almighty Dollar, ironic as it may seem, keeps the planet from taking a standing eight (8)-count.
Religion is a minor hindrance on many scientific fronts, but reality-based results keep winning the "hearts and minds" routine.
On the contrary: science negates what religion thinks it's created.
That's a good point, as many species, even plants, alter and/or control their environment for a better chance of survival.

But I think you underestimate religion's suppression of science in our daily lives. Even more so in other countries where decisions are mostly based upon insane religious dogmas.
Big Al

Hanna City, IL

#13 Nov 20, 2011
"Science can destroy religion by ignoring it as well as by disproving its tenets. No one ever demonstrated, so far as I am aware, the nonexistence of Zeus or Thor—but they have few followers now." — Arthur C Clarke
Hardie-Har-Har

Marietta, GA

#14 Nov 20, 2011
twinertia wrote:
<quoted text>
Who, exactly, do you think has "programmed" ants? Are you saying these (and other) creatures haven't evolved their various abilities over time?
Obviously, humans are having greater impact upon their natural surroundings.
Funny you should mention the .357 Magnum, as certain species of ants pack a mean venom in their bites. It only takes seven (7) or eight (8) fire ant bites to send someone into shock and kill them. That's an evolved weapon that people are just now beginning to decipher.
Hardie-Har-Har,

Your relavence is irrelavent to this thread, there Twin.

A lion will bite your freaking head off and a e'phant will
stomp yo ass to dust with their evolved weapons. So WTF???

You love semantics that miss the target here!

Give us comps that practice Religion and Science! That's relavent!

Your ants are not even in our ballpark here! Come on, ehh??

Ants crawled to where they are over millions of years of evo.

Man broke his religious shackels and in a few deft centuries

walked the moon, man. Ants???(LMFAO)

Again,... Twinertia, think "SCIENCE-VS-RELIGION " context = ABC!

Otherwise, you just wanna argue bullshit outside of our thread!

Hardie-Har-Har
Punisher

Bronxville, NY

#15 Nov 20, 2011
Seen Is Awesome wrote:
<quoted text>
That's a good point, as many species, even plants, alter and/or control their environment for a better chance of survival.

But I think you underestimate religion's suppression of science in our daily lives. Even more so in other countries where decisions are mostly based upon insane religious dogmas.
I think this is an awfully fine line to dance...as we tend to not include the technology (that science develops) when we look at our daily lives. We are immersed in the trappings of science all day - even in those countries where religion rule the roost, they too are being sucked along in the wake of the wave of technology...

IMO where science and religion truly butt heads is on two distinct fronts. 1. Origin of life, mankind, and the diversity of species on this planet. 2. When the sciences turn on its head, why humans behave as they do. As both get to the heart of why and how Religions became so important to humans. "How, why are we here?" And, "Why we behave the way we do?" For the Believers both are answered because of God, for those of us less inclined to such a trite and pat answer, its because of explained, or to-be explained natural phenomena. That in turn must be used to adjust our paradigm of what we think is behind our thinking and behaviors.

IMO, religion is not truly in the way of the sciences at all - in our daily lives, as its the hard-goods and results of science (technology) that most effect us on a daily basis...not the whys and wherefores...
Punisher

Bronxville, NY

#16 Nov 20, 2011
Hardie-Har-Har wrote:
<quoted text>
Hardie-Har-Har,
Your relavence is irrelavent to this thread, there Twin.
A lion will bite your freaking head off and a e'phant will
stomp yo ass to dust with their evolved weapons. So WTF???
You love semantics that miss the target here!
Give us comps that practice Religion and Science! That's relavent!
Your ants are not even in our ballpark here! Come on, ehh??
Ants crawled to where they are over millions of years of evo.
Man broke his religious shackels and in a few deft centuries
walked the moon, man. Ants???(LMFAO)
Again,... Twinertia, think "SCIENCE-VS-RELIGION " context = ABC!
Otherwise, you just wanna argue bullshit outside of our thread!
Hardie-Har-Har
Is it truly a breaking of shackles, or that Humanity simply won't stand still...that the shackles never truly lock closed to begin with...? They may bind for a moment in time, but never truly stop us...?

Yes, we can say that religious institutions have and still do try and get in the way of scientific advances - but they never truly do more than divert it...they can never truly lock it down.

Since: Oct 09

Location hidden

#17 Nov 20, 2011
Hardie-Har-Har wrote:
<quoted text>
Hardie-Har-Har,
Your relavence is irrelavent to this thread, there Twin.
A lion will bite your freaking head off and a e'phant will
stomp yo ass to dust with their evolved weapons. So WTF???
You love semantics that miss the target here!
Give us comps that practice Religion and Science! That's relavent!
Your ants are not even in our ballpark here! Come on, ehh??
Ants crawled to where they are over millions of years of evo.
Man broke his religious shackels and in a few deft centuries
walked the moon, man. Ants???(LMFAO)
Again,... Twinertia, think "SCIENCE-VS-RELIGION " context = ABC!
Otherwise, you just wanna argue bullshit outside of our thread!
Hardie-Har-Har
Science versus religion?

Science wins.
Hardie-Har-Har

Marietta, GA

#18 Nov 20, 2011
twinertia wrote:
<quoted text>
Science versus religion?
Science wins.
well, Praise the lord for that Great answer,... and I agree!

But get ready for war, Twin!

You know the religitards are massing for a powerful assault!

Hardie-Har-Har!
Big Al

Hanna City, IL

#19 Nov 20, 2011
"It vexes me when they would constrain science by the authority of the Scriptures, and yet do not consider themselves bound to answer reason and experiment." - Galileo Galilei
JURY

Marietta, GA

#20 Nov 20, 2011
Back to Square One:

Man invented RELIGION! Man invented SCIENCE!

No animal life practices either, nor cares to!

This war is man-made and only man will determine
its outcome. Of course, we know it has environmental
and collateral damage that will affect the whole
planet, either for good or for bad.

This thread means to explore in multiple ways the processes and products of human creativity, and to consider their impact on society and the mind.... ALSO;

This thread means to explore in multiple ways the processes and products of human superstitions/religions, and to consider their impact on society and the mind.
Your Religious/Scientific input is encouraged and appreciated!

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 49
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Christian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Is there any evidence Apostles Peter and Paul b... 12 min DrSCIENCE 84
failed prophecies 52 min Big Al 584
Turns Out 1 hr DrSCIENCE 171
Forum has gone to the dogs 1 hr DrSCIENCE 55
Early Christianity 1 hr DrSCIENCE 1,279
Intelligent People Question Everything 1 hr Gary coaldigger 2,335
If you believe in Noah's Ark, you are a certifi... (Dec '08) 10 hr Le Monde 1,350
More from around the web