Science vs. Religion

Since: Sep 13

Location hidden

#1758 Sep 22, 2013
NDanger wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you like watching gays? Wow! You are a freak!!!
September 22, 2013

I like to watch gays while they're burning in everlasting Hell.
I have Spoken.

Forever and Ever
BobLoBlaah

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#1759 Sep 22, 2013
lol wrote:
<quoted text>
What do you mean, what about it? It proves how dishonest evolutionists are to try to make a point where there is none. Many evolutionists have gotten so desperate to prove a lie they have made up all sorts of nonsense. Would you like a list?
Fighting the battle for creationism and ID is like fighting over a city in ruins, it is already a lost battle, everybody knows it but not all want to admit it.
Job

Santa Clara, CA

#1760 Sep 23, 2013
Liam R wrote:
1. <quoted text>
Well, IF souls exist, there is no reason to believe that only humans possess them, therefore it would be reasonable to assume that animals have souls as well, thus those souls would survive the death of the pet just as well as the human soul would survive the death of the person, and therefore it would be reasonable to believe in the possibility.
However, there is currently no objective, testable evidence of a soul.
<quoted text>

2. The tyranny of the masses is still a form of tyranny. The majority does not get to vote away the civil rights of a minority, no matter how unpopular that minority might be.
If you don't like SSM, don't get gay married.
1. In a scenario where a pet is in a form of paradise, we're not talking merely about 'survival'. It's logical to suggest that a paradise would also be in existence as a result of a creator, and that creator 'bringing' in that pet into that paradise realm. If you can accept that as a possibility, then what makes that more plausible than Heaven described in the Bible? And of course again, the Bible doesn't specifically describe what happens to animals.

3. Just about anything can be a 'minority'. Those who favor having a stadium built may be a vast majority, and no stadium proponents a minority. Why discriminate against the minority?
Job

Santa Clara, CA

#1761 Sep 23, 2013
Liam R wrote:
1. <quoted text>
Ignoring the proof is not the same as there being no proof. The proof exists, and has been around for decades now.
<quoted text>

2. Trying to pretend that the Bible's Genesis myth is anything but a myth...
<quoted text>

3. Science is science, and no valid science should be excluded. ID is not a valid science, never has been, never will be.
<quoted text>

4. Muslim, xian: fundies are fundies and do their best to pretend the real world does not exist.
<quoted text>

5. I am more optimistic, I just think that that 46% are profoundly ignorant.
<quoted text>

6. Yes, ALL kids need a good science education, starting in elementary school.

7. <quoted text>
Science does not ever use a "majority" to determine who is right. Pretty much every theory starts out with a tiny minority of supporters, with the majority looking for holes. Once it becomes evident that there are no holes, the theory slowly accumulates more more supporters among the scientific community. It is only over much time that it becomes accepted by a majority. Even then, if a better theory comes along, the new theory will displace the old.
<quoted text>
Your loss.
1. Creationists however don't ignore the alleged proof. It's the alleged "proofs" that are the reason why some evolutionists have departed from the evolution "faith".

2. Instead of embracing the Big Bang myth?

3. Truth is what is important. If it came down to the educational system actually believing that, even if they got 'snippy' over definition of what is science, or valid science, they could allow ID/Creationism to be presented in a different department.

4. Fundamentalist atheists do a great job of pretending that nothing exists outside the world we see. It's actually a very appealing "sell". It comes across as 'humility' by making certain admissions like we are like little ants just scraping the barrel of knowledge, we ascended from lower life forms (as opposed to being created), etc. However, the theme not only places modern humanity on a pedestal, fundamentalist atheists have bought the "atheists are at the very top" package deal because they think they've overcome some supposed human need for a God. The reality is, no one naturally goes to/seeks God. We 'all' want to do our own thing.

5. Do you think it's a black and white dividing line with those percentages? That they don't include those who are not sure, or only lean towards one of the two worldviews?

6. For one we can't obviously force children to learn beyond their capacity. That would be abuse. However, elementary school kids are exposed to evolution all the time during field trips to natural history museums, seeing diagrams of evolution, etc.

And fortunately, these subliminal attempts don't ultimately work as we can see from certain polls/stats.

7. I'm just saying that "majority" is used as a selling point now. How quickly one thinks evolution, or any theory was/is embraced is relative. Evolution had a big selling point for instance among scientists who probably were racists. To them, the theory was probably embraced relatively quick.
Job

Santa Clara, CA

#1762 Sep 23, 2013
Liam R wrote:
1. <quoted text>
There is no evidence supporting that hypothesis.
<quoted text>
You should. "Finding Darwin's God: a scientist's search for common ground between God and evolution" by Kenneth R. Miller is a great book. Not only does it do a decent job of explaining the facts of evolution, it shows how evolution is NOT at odds with belief in a Deity. In fact, it goes so far as to demonstrate just HOW a Deity could have guided evolution in a manner that would not leave Divine fingerprints.
1. You claimed that although you don't think that there's evidence of a soul that it's plausible for animals to arrive into a paradise realm if there 'is' a soul. Is a creator plausible when considering the intricacies of life (which can be considered evidence of a creator), and that a paradise afterlife realm where both humans and animals may abide would probably be a product of a creator?

I'm also kind of wondering if you're mixing the term "evidence" up with the term "proof"?
Job

Santa Clara, CA

#1763 Sep 23, 2013
Liam R wrote:
<quoted text>

You should. "Finding Darwin's God: a scientist's search for common ground between God and evolution" by Kenneth R. Miller is a great book. Not only does it do a decent job of explaining the facts of evolution, it shows how evolution is NOT at odds with belief in a Deity. In fact, it goes so far as to demonstrate just HOW a Deity could have guided evolution in a manner that would not leave Divine fingerprints.
I'm not searching for common ground between God and evolution. That's a problem for theistic evolutionists.

I don't believe in an impersonal deity. That being said, does this book suggest that "theistic evolution" is not at odds with evolution, or just a more generalized (impersonal) deity that a deist would promote?
Common Sense

San Diego, CA

#1764 Sep 23, 2013
Job wrote:
<quoted text>I don't believe in an impersonal deity.
Did your personal jesus die for the sins of humans on billions of other planets in the universe with life? Somehow your old superstitious book forgot to mention that, or the fact our milky-way is but one of billions of galaxies, each having billions of planets..I know, you don't answer my questions because you have no answers, only blind faith for the reward you seek.
Common Sense

San Diego, CA

#1765 Sep 23, 2013
Job wrote:
<quoted text>.
For those searching for the truth about a god , could you please explain how vegetation could grow (according to your bible)on the 3ed day of creation without a sun which wasn't created until the 4th day??

Gen 1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

Gen 1:12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

Gen 1:13 And the evening and the morning were the ***THIRD DAY***.
_________
Gen 1:14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days.

Gen 1:15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.

Gen 1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

Gen 1:17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,

Gen 1:18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.

Gen 1:19 And the evening and the morning were the ***FOURTH DAY***.
_____

“Wear white at night.”

Since: Jun 09

Albuquerque

#1768 Sep 23, 2013
Job wrote:
<quoted text>
1. Creationists however don't ignore the alleged proof. It's the alleged "proofs" that are the reason why some evolutionists have departed from the evolution "faith".
2. Instead of embracing the Big Bang myth?
3. Truth is what is important. If it came down to the educational system actually believing that, even if they got 'snippy' over definition of what is science, or valid science, they could allow ID/Creationism to be presented in a different department.
4. Fundamentalist atheists do a great job of pretending that nothing exists outside the world we see. It's actually a very appealing "sell". It comes across as 'humility' by making certain admissions like we are like little ants just scraping the barrel of knowledge, we ascended from lower life forms (as opposed to being created), etc. However, the theme not only places modern humanity on a pedestal, fundamentalist atheists have bought the "atheists are at the very top" package deal because they think they've overcome some supposed human need for a God. The reality is, no one naturally goes to/seeks God. We 'all' want to do our own thing.
5. Do you think it's a black and white dividing line with those percentages? That they don't include those who are not sure, or only lean towards one of the two worldviews?
6. For one we can't obviously force children to learn beyond their capacity. That would be abuse. However, elementary school kids are exposed to evolution all the time during field trips to natural history museums, seeing diagrams of evolution, etc.
And fortunately, these subliminal attempts don't ultimately work as we can see from certain polls/stats.
7. I'm just saying that "majority" is used as a selling point now. How quickly one thinks evolution, or any theory was/is embraced is relative. Evolution had a big selling point for instance among scientists who probably were racists. To them, the theory was probably embraced relatively quick.
Since you think evolution is a faith and the so-called Big Bang is a myth I guess we could include ID in the department with finger paints and nap time.

You are so ridiculous.

God bless you.

“Wear white at night.”

Since: Jun 09

Albuquerque

#1769 Sep 23, 2013
Job wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not searching for common ground between God and evolution. That's a problem for theistic evolutionists.
I don't believe in an impersonal deity. That being said, does this book suggest that "theistic evolution" is not at odds with evolution, or just a more generalized (impersonal) deity that a deist would promote?
Nope. It's a problem for you. The Earth is not flat. If you cannot reconcile your interpretation of the the Bible with reality you must reinterpret the Bible, not reality.

God bless you.

NDanger

“Third Eye”

Since: Nov 10

You can't get there from here.

#1770 Sep 23, 2013
SATANISGOD wrote:
<quoted text>
I enjoyed watching you being corn holed by your pastor...
Figured as much!

NDanger

“Third Eye”

Since: Nov 10

You can't get there from here.

#1771 Sep 23, 2013
SATANISGOD wrote:
<quoted text>
big bang myth? here is a flash moron.. Big Bang proved by NASA 5 years ago...they won the nobel prize in physics for it....keep trying..
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/15113168/from/ET#.U...
Key words here:

circumstantial
estimates
$1.4 million check

Proof? sorry...

People will do anything for $1.4 million

Do you go by Mo? surname Ron?
Common Sense

San Diego, CA

#1772 Sep 23, 2013
Job wrote:
<quoted text>2. Instead of embracing the Big Bang myth?
The big bang is a theory, not a myth..An example of a myth is your bible and proven so a long time ago by Mat 28:20.

Jesus didn't tell his disciples to write things down, or write a book about what he said for future generations to read the next 2,000 years..He told them what to do after he left and he would return before some of them died..This prediction, and the "great tribulations" predictions were proven false when the last disciple died..

Mat 28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen

Luk 9:27 But I tell you of a truth, there be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the kingdom of God.

“Wear white at night.”

Since: Jun 09

Albuquerque

#1773 Sep 23, 2013
NDanger wrote:
<quoted text>
Key words here:
circumstantial
estimates
$1.4 million check
Proof? sorry...
People will do anything for $1.4 million
Do you go by Mo? surname Ron?
Asked and answered:

"I'm a prophet.

That's what they want. Talking donkey stories. If they were actually bold enough to go to scientifie link they know they wouldn't understand a single word but they'll look for something like 'as yet undefined' and figure that's proof positive donkeys talk.

What do you expect from a bunch of hillbillies.

-- 15DL, yesterday." --(Thursday)

“Wear white at night.”

Since: Jun 09

Albuquerque

#1774 Sep 23, 2013
Sorry Nick, you're really not that bad a guy.
The money is to be invested in further research and generally is rather insignificant compared to the actual cost. It's not like they're going to by themselves a Maseratti. Can you even get a Maseratti for 1.4 million?

Unfortunately your strategy is a bit worn.

God bless you.
Job

Santa Clara, CA

#1775 Sep 24, 2013
Common Sense wrote:
<quoted text>
Here they are, I'm surprised you didn't know the jesus story was plagiarized making it as invalid as the others....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =f9Tc9C-MsMkXX
This deserves it's very own post.

As far as your apparent surprise, don't be. I've heard this all before.

One of the problems to consider in the whole Jesus comparison game is that one of the characters Jesus is alleged to be one and the same with is Julius Caesar. The problem being that if Jesus is Julius Caesar, and Jesus is also various older mythological characters, then where does that leave Julius Caesar? Is Julius Caesar a myth also?

Another irony is that we don't know what date Jesus was born. So the whole December 25th theme is irrelevant.

Here's another problem:

Whenever a myth is born depicting a deity, they are almost unanimously going to have supernatural powers, be eternal, and have followers. The trickery in suggesting that Jesus Christ is borrowed from myths is switching words used in the Bible that were not used in the myths, or that they normally wouldn't use themselves like 'resurrection','disciple','mir acles', etc. In other words, when the word 'magic' would often be used, the word is replaced with 'miracles'. Or a 'following' or related word is used, the term 'disciple' is instead incorporated. When a character like 'Osiris' comes back to life after being chopped into pieces, he becomes 'resurrected'(never mind the fact that Osiris' death is absolutely nothing like Jesus' crucifixion).

The key is to focus on similarities, and ignoring differences. We can see the effect of this strategy when considering Lincoln and Kennedy:

Lincoln was elected to Congress in 1846

Kennedy was elected to Congress in 1946

He was elected President in 1860

He was elected President in 1960

His wife lost a child while living in the White House

His wife lost a child while living in the White House

He was directly concerned with Civil Rights

He was directly concerned with Civil Rights

Lincoln was shot in the back of the head in the presence of his wife

Kennedy was shot in the back of the head in the presence of his wife

Lincoln shot in the Ford Theatre

Kennedy shot in a Lincoln, made by Ford

He was shot on a Friday

He was shot on a Friday

The assassin, John Wilkes Booth, was known by three names, comprised of fifteen letters

The assassin, Lee Harvey Oswald, was known by three names, comprised of fifteen letters

Booth was killed before being brought to trial

Oswald was killed before being brought to trial

There were theories that Booth was part of a greater conspiracy

There were theories that Oswald was part of a greater conspiracy

Lincoln's successor was Andrew Johnson, born in 1808

Kennedy's successor was Lyndon Johnson, born in 1908

Another problem is that the comparisons given concerning "Horus" is a hoax. Those claims of similarities are supposed to come from the "Egyptian Book Of The Dead". The problem? Basically, none of it is in there. It's a complete hoax.

So not only will atheist "activists" (not atheists in general) will manipulate wording in attempting to make their case, some will flat out "lie".

Why you ask? Good question.
Job

Santa Clara, CA

#1776 Sep 24, 2013
Common Sense wrote:
1. <quoted text>
That didn't answer my question about what you said, here it is again.
1. What do you mean the universe is far younger than science says it is 'IN YEARS'>?? You can approximate years if you like...
<quoted text>

2. That's because there's no evidence a creator isn't responsible for the universe we study..

3. BTW, have you found the time to view the '2 minute' video of Carl Sagan on religion I sent you a few days ago?
<quoted text>

4. Did these people do the research on this using the scientific method to draw their conclusion ?
<quoted text>

5. Why do you keep avoiding questions about what you post to me?? Here they are again and lets stay on track..
4. What evidence do they have to make them believe humans didn't evolve from apes.>? Who do they think we evolved from, or are they all creationists believing it with faith?
<quoted text>
1. First off, science doesn't state that the universe is young or old. It's 'scientists' that make various claims. "Science" is an innocent party.

As I recall, I believe that I asked you the question:

"Do you really think that there's 'no' evidence that the universe is younger than most scientists suggest?

Let's say "6,000-10,000" as opposed to "billions" to approximate as you suggest.

2. There's also no evidence for 'or' against the existence of the "Flying Spaghetti Monster". I don't think however that we can place a parody figure in the same classification of a creator. Do you?

3. Yes I have. What Sagan did is primarily supply an alternative to the concept of an eternal creator. Well that's fine. But why try to make an alternative the empirical focus? Does it make sense to suggest that because someone proposes an alternative to an eternal creator, that has to become a reason to remove a creator from consideration?

4. Of course.

5. First off, just to make things clear, I'm not going to 'run' to the tune of your drum beat. If you ask a question that leads to providing a link, I will provide one I think is appropriate. The problem is that I don't think you are truly interested in finding out what creation scientists have to say. I could be wrong. I don't know if you watched the video I provided, but I think it's a good starting point. Here's another good starting point:



Obviously there's a series involving Jerry Bergman that you can pick and choose to watch yourself (since he is one of the individuals we're talking about). I know that you've given me short videos to view, and Jerry Bergman's videos are around 30 minutes long. But, I have to say, if you're really interested you will take the time to view them.
Job

Santa Clara, CA

#1777 Sep 24, 2013
Common Sense wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
I'm 50/50 because there's no evidence a Deist entity exists, and there's no evidence it doesn't..Religious gods written about by ancient minds I'm 100% certain don't exist..As far as christianity is concerned, if it didn't say torture in hell if you don't believe it, and blissful eternity in heaven if you do, there would be no believers at all..Here's the 2 minute Carl Sagan video again on religion..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =rOYrlqF-IW0XX
This just doesn't make sense Common Sense. There's no evidence that the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists and no evidence it doesn't. Are you 50-50 on the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

The same can be said for any religious deity where's there's no evidence for or against. How can you be 100% sure Vishnu for instance doesn't exist, and 50-50 on a deistic type deity?

Something doesn't mesh here.
Job

Santa Clara, CA

#1778 Sep 24, 2013
Big Al wrote:
<quoted text>
1. I don't think the ancient Greeks built temples, offered sacrfices, and dedicated the olympic games to a god that they considered to be imaginary.
<quoted text>

2. Jesus may well have existed in the rea world 2,000 years ago but he now exists only the words of the Bible and in human imagination. My friends exist in the real world and because you or I or anyone else can see, hear and touch them with our ordinary human senses I don't have to "believe" in their existence. Several of my friends are dead and I can no longer see hear or touch them except in my imagination and through memorabilia because they no longer exist in the real world just like Jesus.
<quoted text>

3. Thomas Paine did not "affix" any idea to his "God" except that of "first cause". When you say "God" is supernatural or not supernatural or that "God" performed supernatural actions you are "affixing" your ideas to Paine's incomprehensible "God".
1. The people that physically built the temples probably did so for either 'pay', or 'servitude'. How do you know what they truly believed?

Another question is, do you think religion was ever used to control the masses?

2. Are you claiming that a creator of a universe cannot communicate with humans 'personally'?

3. I'm not talking about what Paine "affixed" at this point. I'm asking for 'your' personal opinion.

Do you think that the deity that Thomas Paine believed in would have, or could have acted outside of "natural law" to create us? Do you think the deity could only have created us via "natural law"?
Job

Santa Clara, CA

#1779 Sep 24, 2013
TheCapedCrusader wrote:
1. <quoted text>
Courts are there to sort things out when all else fails.
<quoted text>

"Next, and as stated, religious opponents of evolution began cloaking religious beliefs in scientific sounding language and then mandating that schools teach the resulting "creation science" or "scientific creationism" as an alternative to evolution. However, this tactic was likewise unsuccessful under the First Amendment. "Fundamentalist organizations were formed to promote the idea that the Book of Genesis was supported by scientific data. The terms 'creation science' and 'scientific creationism' have been adopted by these Fundamentalists as descriptive of their study of creation and the origins of man." McLean, 529 F. Supp. at 1259. In 1982, the district court in McLean reviewed Arkansas's balanced-treatment law and evaluated creation science in light of Scopes, Epperson, and the long history of Fundamentalism's attack on the scientific theory of evolution, as well as the statute's legisl ative history and historical context. The court found that creation science organizations were fundamentalist religious entities that "consider[ed] the introduction of creation science into the public schools part of their ministry." Id. at 1260. The court in McLean stated that creation science rested on a "contrived dualism" that recognized only two possible explanations for life, the scientific theory of evolution and biblical creationism, treated the two as mutually exclusive such that "one must either accept the literal interpretation of Genesis or else believe in the godless system of evolution," and accordingly viewed any critiques of evolution as evidence that necessarily supported biblical creationism. Id. at 1266. The court concluded that creation science "is simply not science" because it depends upon "supernatural intervention," which cannot be explained by natural causes, or be proven through empirical investigation, and is therefore neither testable nor falsifiable. Id. at 1267."
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/kitzmil...
<quoted text>

2. Yet the process of law relies on empirical evidence, dna testing, etc. Don't you watch CSI? Perhaps you would prefer the use of a ducking stool to determine guilt / innocence - If the person sinks into the water they are innocent.

3. The trial was about the legality of teaching Creationism as science and breaching the Esablishment clause in the First Amendment.
<quoted text>

4. And it is supported by empirical evidence. The Earth is 4.54 billion years old.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dalrymple/sci...
1. If they've come to the conclusion that the ID proponents represented had proselytizing on their mind, then rules should be applied when teaching ID to prevent things like proselytizing.

2. No I don't watch CSI. As far as the conclusion of the court, please refer to my response #1.

3. Which only states that there will be no establishment of religion. Again, if proselytizing a specific religion is of concern, lay down ground rules to prevent it (back to #1).

4. I'll ask you the same question I asked Common Sense:

Do you think that there's "no" evidence for a considerably younger earth (or universe) like that proposed by Creationists?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

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
The truth is difficult, I understand. 1 hr Jake999 39
Faith during hard times 6 hr blacklagoon 107
The False Teachings of the Hebrew Israelites, s... (Jan '14) 6 hr Ben Avraham 1,662
the pauline paradox 8 hr susanblange 85
Are Your Beliefs TRUE? 8 hr blacklagoon 142
Early Christianity (Dec '16) 10 hr Big Al 2,460
George Washington and the duty of prayer 12 hr Big Al 9
More from around the web