Regarding the Science vs Religion 'issue'

Discussion in 'Religion and Ethics' started by 8236, Aug 18, 2004.

  1. 8236
    Offline

    8236 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2004
    Messages:
    490
    Thanks Received:
    61
    Trophy Points:
    78
    Location:
    52.5 N 1.5 W
    Ratings:
    +73
    I won't even call it a debate. For it is not one.

    In simple terms. If I ask you: How many apples make a pear? You would be stuck for an answer. (If not, then please do explain, in the context that was meant by the question).

    Ok here goes:
    ON BEHALF OF ALL 'SCIENTISTS' (essentially meaning: everyone): SCIENCE AND RELIGION ARE MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE:
    Science is about nothing more interesting than making OBSERVATIONS, taking MEASUREMENTS, and then (hopefully) trying to make those observations fit a THEORY (usually based upon another theory) in order to 'explain' the origional observation and make (future) predictions about the PHENOMENON previously observed. (The different processes can take place in varying orders)

    'Science' is a kind of framework that floats in an 'ether' like a floating scaffolding arrangement. New ideas come along, are tested and (when found to be in agreement with the nuts and bolts of the 'scaffolding') are added to it. The whole 'arrangement' is dependent upon itself - it's like a house of cards - and could easily collapse, as would be the case, for instance, if a single phenomenon like a measurable 'vision' or the 'hand of God' appeared out of 'thin air'. This however, has never been observed, and as time goes by, it allows us to become more and more certain that we understand the world around us to an extent that allows us to do 'usefull' things with its matter/'energy', like I am now, spouting over the internet.

    Science is a way of looking at the world. It is not perfect and is forever changing/moving on/developing. So next time you read an article in the paper saying 'Einstein was wrong' or whatever, ignore it for the rag that it is, because the idiots that wrote it missed the point.

    These are the most relevent contributions I will ever make on this board - so plz take note - particularly those who see Science as some kind of 'religious' threat to their own faith, coz that is exactly what religion is: FAITH.

    ONE CAN NOT MEASURE 'GOD'. Therefore SCIENCE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH RELIGION. AT ALL.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  2. 5stringJeff
    Offline

    5stringJeff Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2003
    Messages:
    9,990
    Thanks Received:
    536
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Puyallup, WA
    Ratings:
    +540
    That's all good and well until you start hypothesizing the origins of life and the origins of the universe. Neither can be explained through measurable and/or natural theories of science. In fact, the overwhelming evidence points towards a Creator - the Theory of Intellegent Design.

    And to answer your question, you cannot make apples out of pears. A better question would have been, why is the spped of light 3x10^8 m/s, instead of some other constant number?
     
  3. Bern80
    Offline

    Bern80 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Messages:
    8,094
    Thanks Received:
    720
    Trophy Points:
    138
    Ratings:
    +726
    I think you missed the point again Jeff. It simply means a theory based on an observation is no longer valid it is not. Our current hypothesis may be falling apart so we will devise another one.

    That said IF one is going to argue for the theory of intelligent design, those arguments can't be bases on science because you are trying to prove something via a method that you have previously denounced.

    The only way i can see the intelligent design theory being supported is that things occured in the Earth's history that are beyond our comprehension. That means one of two things A) we don't currently have the knowledge to comprehend it, but we may in the future or B) what happened can not be explained logically and will never be. B) is the only one that supports there being an intelligent design.

    But there still problems with this. If indeed there is an intelligent design, though most of our lives are good, it has failed miserably in contrast to the Utopia life could be. The creator is omnisscient, or so the story goes, so said creator had to know how "design" was gonna turn out and indeed IT does know if you beleive what the Bible says. If this life is a "design" I certainly don't see the intelligence in it.

    If you still believe in a creator there are a couple other major questions to ask. Why then, knowing how it was gonna turn out, did IT make the design the way it did? Why did it build so many negatives into our life and give people the ability to treat others with the hatred and intollerance with which many people treat each other on this Earth?

    The answer is either there is no creator and this is simply how it turned out, though we are still unclear as to exactley how.

    or

    It was done on purpose: either our creator is running a sick exeriment or the time between birth and death is a test. There has to be a reason a creator gave us the ability to choose how our lives turn out and a reason why some suffer so much in this life for no reason.

    I still don't know if there is a creator or not or if u believe in one. If there is one i don't think he is one that commits acts of divine itervention or answers prayers. Because if he was that means there is a plan for all of us and thus your life is not your own.

    I think, if there is a creator, that he simply set the boulder down the hill and whatever happens, happens. Our lives are something the creator has no control over, maybe it's what happens after that is the most important. Sometimes I think the plan is a little like the world in which Todd McFarlane's Spawn is written in where what we do in this life determines what side of armegeddon you fight on in the afterlife.
     
  4. 5stringJeff
    Offline

    5stringJeff Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2003
    Messages:
    9,990
    Thanks Received:
    536
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Puyallup, WA
    Ratings:
    +540
    The basic supposition of Intelligent Design (ID) is that the existence of th euniverse and the existence of life cannot be explained by natural means; therefore, scientists have hypothesized that a supernatural force created the universe and life. And the evidence points to the conclusion that the universe could not have spontaneously begun; after all, everything that begins to exist must have a cause. What caused the universe? ID supporters say God did; "naturalist" scientists have no explanation at all.
    One other point: the fact that life on Earth isn't perfect does not indicate failure of design; it indicates the existence of free will. (There's another can of worms!)
     
  5. dilloduck
    Offline

    dilloduck Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2004
    Messages:
    53,240
    Thanks Received:
    5,552
    Trophy Points:
    1,850
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    Ratings:
    +6,403
    can something exist without having been "caused"?
     
  6. 5stringJeff
    Offline

    5stringJeff Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2003
    Messages:
    9,990
    Thanks Received:
    536
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Puyallup, WA
    Ratings:
    +540
    Something must have been the "first cause." According to ID, the Creator (God) is that first cause.
     
  7. Bern80
    Offline

    Bern80 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Messages:
    8,094
    Thanks Received:
    720
    Trophy Points:
    138
    Ratings:
    +726
    If something can not be explained by natural means how can there be evidence to support it i.e. ID.

    Again just because we don't have the education or knowledge to explain somehting now doesn't mean it can't be explained nor does it mean it is beyond the realm of science simpley because it is out of our comprehension.

    Your explanation is a cop out "we can't figure it out so God must have done it?" If this was office space this would be the first square on the 'ol jump to conclusions mat.
     
  8. ixove1971
    Offline

    ixove1971 Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2004
    Messages:
    3
    Thanks Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1
    :flameth: First of all, in order to have any conversation or discussion on any subject there must first be some rules that are involved. Just like a game, if both parties are not playing by the same rules then there is no sense in playing that game. This would start with a definition of the word "Fact". "Fact" as defined in science must meet three citeria: (1) It must be testable-you have to be able to test that theory in a laboratory setting. (2) Observable-It must be observable in nature, you must be able to observe it and see it occur on a daily basis somewhere on the earth in nature. Finally, (3) Repeatable-EVERY time you do a test in a lab setting you must come up with the same result, i.e. 1+1=2. I could exhaust many, many pages on how the evolutionay theory meets NONE of these criteria, but you are looking for proof of creationism so i will leave this alone at this time. With this in mind I will start on several facts that prove creation is the only possibility. (1) The first law of Thermodynamics-States that something cannot come out of nothing-This law is self-explanitory, that without the right ingredience, put together at the right time, and in the right order, life CANNOT be formed. Proteins, (which are the basic building blocks of life) could not be formed out of thin air, they have to be created from somewhere, and where as the evolutionary theory canot provide and answer to this law: the creation mandate can.

    This leads me to the Second law of thermodynamics-This law states that without a creative force behind it things in nature regress and not progress. As an example, if you throw an egg on the sidewalk and walk away from it, the basic building blocks of that eggs(proteins) would break down into its lowest form and eventually disipate. Unless a creative force were to come along and change the form of the egg by adding heat, cold or some other outside force to change the form of the egg. Once again the evolutionary theory is in serious contridiction of this scientific law where creation has no problem answering it. I have heard it said that this law only applies in a closed system, my response has always been for them to name one place on this earth where this law does not apply, and to this day i still await a response...

    Some mathmatical support for creation:

    According to scientists, mathmatics by far is the most exact form of factual proof to support or reject a theory, because it is one if not the only way, to support the citeria for a "fact" as mentioned in the column above. Mathmatical probability is a good indicator of how likely or un-likely a thoery can then be defined as "fact". According to the laws of mathmatical probability the cut-off for possibility for any thoery being fact is 10 to the 50th power. Anything greater than this is considered a mathmatical improbability. Any thing equal or less is probable, and anything under or equal to 10 to the 1st power is considered fact.
     
  9. 5stringJeff
    Offline

    5stringJeff Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2003
    Messages:
    9,990
    Thanks Received:
    536
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Puyallup, WA
    Ratings:
    +540
    Great points ixove! Welcome!
     

Share This Page