what really annoys me about this religion vs non religious article

[Godzuki]

[B]http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2014/04/09/is-the-internet-killing-religion/?hpt=hp_t2\


Is the Internet killing religion?

By Jessica Ravitz, CNN

(CNN) We can blame the Internet for plenty: the proliferation of porn, our obsession with cat videos, the alleged rise of teen trends like

[Budadiiii]

How did you get my password. :wtf:

[ace23]

Nothing wrong with the article.

[97 bulls]

is it blames the internet and not science/facts vs religion. I mean ever since i took science in school it contradicted almost everything i learned from religion. almost never does anything supernatural happen in this world. As much as i want so bad to believe something crazy like that has proof its always some hoax or BS.*

Its just funny how they pretend to blame the internet. kills me reading stuff like this.

How has science hurt your views on God? All it does is answer how things work. Not how things began.

[TheReal Kendall]

Is Budadiii and Godzuki really the same person????

[Bandito]

Is Budadiii and Godzuki really the same person????
Yes and this account is Budadiiii's too. If not try to explain how I always write my alt's name right. :eek:

[Godzuki]

Is Budadiii and Godzuki really the same person????


Yes and this account is Budadiiii's too. If not try to explain how I always write my alt's name right. :eek:

[longtime lurker]

Why is anyone shocked that when people have access to do their own research on religion they'll come to their own conclusions?

[TheReal Kendall]

Yes and this account is Budadiiii's too. If not try to explain how I always write my alt's name right. :eek:

http://www.reactiongifs.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/whoa-dude.gif

[miller-time]

How has science hurt your views on God? All it does is answer how things work. Not how things began.

It does destroy certain concepts within religion though. Geology indicates no global flood. Evolution negates special creation. Psychology, chemistry, medicine and physics often work together in various combinations to discredit miracles (both modern and ancient). A lot of what religion claims has been shown to be wrong, and if we know those things are wrong then you begin to question the claims that can't be disproved.

[Rasheed1]

can't simply blame the internet.. I searched for Jesus for years and found the truth back in 96 (before the explosion of internet websites).. I read many books that had the info that is now displayed on the internet. Internet just makes that much easier to find

[97 bulls]

It does destroy certain concepts within religion though. Geology indicates no global flood. Evolution negates special creation. Psychology, chemistry, medicine and physics often work together in various combinations to discredit miracles (both modern and ancient). A lot of what religion claims has been shown to be wrong, and if we know those things are wrong then you begin to question the claims that can't be disproved.
I really don't see how. Even science fueds with itself on different issues. If need be, I'll compose a small list. Most scientific research is based and formed on opinion and or the error of man.

[97 bulls]

can't simply blame the internet.. I searched for Jesus for years and found the truth back in 96 (before the explosion of internet websites).. I read many books that had the info that is now displayed on the internet. Internet just makes that much easier to find
What is the truth in your opinion?

[Godzuki]

I really don't see how. Even science fueds with itself on different issues. If need be, I'll compose a small list. Most scientific research is based and formed on opinion and or the error of man.

science is the most consistent thing we are affected by every day. we know why things fall down and don't stay suspeneded in mid air. we know why we see lights in the sky. we use telescopes to see what they actually are. we cure many sicknesses with the studies of bacteria or viruses on microscopic levels. i mean if there is anything we see every second of the day where we see it so often that we take it for granted its science, or rather the scientific explanations for those things that are so consistent its law. which is not to say its the end all be all, because there can be more scientific discoveries made, but enough of consistency over every test possible that we take it as facts at this point.

religion on the other hand is grounded in supernatural. Moses parted the sea. Jesus turned water into wine. God listens to our prayers and helps those who have faith in him, as well as giving them salvation. Angels vs Demons. Heaven vs Hell. These are all supernatural, unseen and never shown itself over hundreds to thousands of years to this day with all of our technology and studies. video cameras everywhere, ghost buster crews and tv shows going to notorious haunted places to prove it exists... Its mostly isolated cases here and there where some people swear they've seen something but it seems usually in peoples heads. I mean i've read so many stories or seen video of stuff i wanted to believe so bad somethign crazy like that exists but it always turns out BS or some hoax or just lame. Its to the point where its so elusive its hard to believe after so long nobody has come up with anything concrete with all of our tech today, but even past history for thousands of years, most people end up grounded in scientific living of the mundane even if they don't realize it.

I mean i wish there were supernatural, the world would be a lot more interesting but at this point it seems mostly in some peoples heads. You have to wonder why its always only the people who have some supernatural beliefs that are the only ones that see things of the supernatural.


on a side note my main point of this thread was my annoyance with how the 'internet' is talked about like its some young demographic that is brainwashed by it. when in reality its as informative as you can get in this world, 'information highway'....not to say everything on the internet is right more than you can read almost every possible differing view on something where a milliion different arguments can be made for them, and where logic/science consensus generally becomes the end result truth. Its just talked about by some people as tho its more of some movement or generational belief system when its being able to read about almost anything and everything much easier than reading different books or newspapers to learn something from differing viewpoints to reach conclusions.

[rufuspaul]

Why do people assume that in order to have religious beliefs you must reject science? I've never found the 2 to be incompatible.

[97 bulls]

Why do people assume that in order to have religious beliefs you must reject science? I've never found the 2 to be incompatible.
Exactly.

[Godzuki]

Exactly.


because science does not accept supernatural. it does not accept God created the universe or humans with Adam and Eve. Nor does religion accept evolution. They're the anti thesis of each other.

I honestly don't get how people can pretend both can co exist if you've read up on the arguments. Let alone studied science and the Bible...

[rufuspaul]

Nor does religion accept evolution.


That's complete bullshit. Quit talking out your ass.



Here's an interesting article:

http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/478126-dangers-of-believing-too-much-in-science-explained-by-scientists/?sidebar=related-below

Many of the scientists who helped establish the widely accepted scientific theories and laws have warned future scientists not to be limited by their work. They also note that many of the greatest discoveries were ridiculed at first, as they stood in opposition to preconceived notions.

Here are 17 insights from some of the greatest minds of science.



1. The Benefits of Being Scoffed At
Rejoice when other scientists do not believe what you know to be true. It will give you extra time to work on it in peace. When they start claiming that they have discovered it before you, look for a new project.

[rufuspaul]

13. Science Doesn

[fpliii]

Why is anyone shocked that when people have access to do their own research on religion they'll come to their own conclusions?
:applause:

[Godzuki]

That's complete bullshit. Quit talking out your ass.



Here's an interesting article:

http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/478126-dangers-of-believing-too-much-in-science-explained-by-scientists/?sidebar=related-below

Many of the scientists who helped establish the widely accepted scientific theories and laws have warned future scientists not to be limited by their work. They also note that many of the greatest discoveries were ridiculed at first, as they stood in opposition to preconceived notions.

Here are 17 insights from some of the greatest minds of science.



1. The Benefits of Being Scoffed At
Rejoice when other scientists do not believe what you know to be true. It will give you extra time to work on it in peace. When they start claiming that they have discovered it before you, look for a new project.

—Efraim Racker, in “Resolution and Reconstitution of Biological Pathways from 1919 to 1984,” published in Federation Proceedings in 1983.

Efraim Racker (1913–1991) was a biochemist. He is known for his work on discovering the mechanism of the synthesis of ATP, a molecule used for transporting energy within cells in organisms.



2. Scientists Should Let Go of Preconceived Notions
You are urgently warned against allowing yourself to be influenced in any way by theories or by other preconceived notions in the observation of phenomena, the performance of analyses and other determinations.

—Emil Hermann Fischer, as quoted by M. Bergmann in “Das Buch der Grosse Chemiker” and translated by Joseph S. Froton in “Contrasts in Scientific Style: Research Groups in the Chemical and Biomedical Sciences.”

Emil Hermann Fischer (1852–1919) was a chemist. He received the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1902 “in recognition of the extraordinary services he has rendered by his work on sugar and purine syntheses,” according to the Nobel Prize website. Fischer is also known for having developed the Fischer projection, a way to draw two-dimensional representations of structures of organic molecules.

3. Strong Resistance to New Ideas
The mind likes a strange idea as little as the body likes a strange protein, and resists it with a similar energy. It would not perhaps be too fanciful to say that a new idea is the most quickly acting antigen known to science. If we watch ourselves honestly, we shall often find that we have begun to argue against a new idea even before it has been completely stated. I have no doubt that that last sentence has already met with repudiation—and shown how quickly the defense mechanism gets to work.

—Wilfred Trotter, in ‘The Collected Papers of Wilfred Trotter F.R.S.,’ published in 1941.

Wilfred Trotter (1872–1939) was a surgeon and social psychologist.



4. Just Because It Can’t Easily Be Measured, Doesn’t Mean It Doesn’t Exist
The first step is to measure whatever can easily be measured. This is OK as far as it goes. The second step is to disregard that which can’t be easily measured or to give it an arbitrary quantitative value. This is artificial and misleading. The third step is to presume that what can’t be measured easily really isn’t important. This is blindness. The fourth step is to say that what can’t be easily measured really doesn’t exist. This is suicide.

–Charles Handy, Economist and organizational behaviorist, in his book ‘The Empty Raincoat: Making Sense of the Future’


5. Physical ‘Laws’ May Change
We have no right to assume that any physical laws exist, or if they have existed up to now, that they will continue to exist in a similar manner in future. It is perfectly conceivable that one fine day Nature should cause an unexpected event to occur which would baffle us all; and if this were to happen we would be powerless to make any objection, even if the result would be that, in spite of our endeavors, we should fail to introduce order into the resulting confusion. In such an event, the only course open to science would be to declare itself bankrupt.

—Max Planck, in his book The Universe in the Light of Modern Physics, translated by W. H. Johnston.

Max Planck is regarded as one of the founders of quantum mechanics. He was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1918 for “the services he rendered to the advancement of Physics by his discovery of energy quanta.”

Science cannot solve the ultimate mystery of nature. And that is because, in the last analysis, we ourselves are part of nature and therefore part of the mystery that we are trying to solve.

—Max Planck, in his book ‘Where Is Science Going?’ translated by James Murphy.


6. Science ‘Another Form of Religion’?
We need not wait for science to give us permission to do the uncommon or go beyond what we have been told is possible. If we do, we make science another form of religion. We should be mavericks; we should practice doing the extraordinary.

—Joe Dispenza, in his book ‘Evolve Your Brain: The Science of Changing Your Mind’

Joe Dispenza is a neuroscientist and chiropractor. He is one of the scientists featured in the film What the Bleep Do We Know!?, which includes documentary-style interviews. Dispenza suffered from fractures to his vertebrae due to a car accident, and doctors said that the only way he could walk again would be to have an operation. But he decided against the operation, believing that he could heal himself using willpower. He was able to walk again three months later.


continued in next post



LOL wtf?

Make a ****ing logical argument instead of pretending like someone who works a job is automatically right about everything because he works that job, without reasonable explanation.


This is one of the dumbest replies i've ever seen. Way to quote people who aren't explaining anything to say they're right because of their job titles that both can coexist. i mean could you at least post their explanations on how they make it all fit, or your explanation of what i said to counter how they contradict each other? Thats really the bottom line here.

I mean if you have even the tiniest bit of logic in your head you could see that a theory on evolution contradicts that God created Adam and Eve first. Or the many other things written in Genesis that does not correlate with science.

Furthermore there are 'new age religious people' these days who make shit up to fit in terms of whats accepted today. Whether thats gays being accepted by God, or fitting in evolution or dinosaurs, or the Big Bang with religion. they adapt the bible so much from its original tenets that is funny to me they can even pretend they're speaking for God in how they pretend to adapt it to today's standards/reason. They call the fundamentalists crazy but at least the fundamentalists are adhering to original texts, and not man adapted watered down versions.

[97 bulls]

LOL wtf?

Make a ****ing logical argument instead of pretending like someone who works a job is automatically right about everything because he works that job, without reasonable explanation.


This is one of the dumbest replies i've ever seen. Way to quote people who aren't explaining anything to say they're right because of their job titles that both can coexist. i mean could you at least post their explanations on how they make it all fit, or your explanation of what i said to counter how they contradict each other? Thats really the bottom line here.

I mean if you have even the tiniest bit of logic in your head you could see that a theory on evolution contradicts that God created Adam and Eve first. Or the many other things written in Genesis that does not correlate with science.

Furthermore there are 'new age religious people' these days who make shit up to fit in terms of whats accepted today. Whether thats gays being accepted by God, or fitting in evolution or dinosaurs, or the Big Bang with religion. they adapt the bible so much from its original tenets that is funny to me they can even pretend they're speaking for God in how they pretend to adapt it to today's standards/reason. They call the fundamentalists crazy but at least the fundamentalists are adhering to original texts, and not man adapted watered down versions.

I wholeheartedly agree with your last paragraph. Except.for the part where you mention dinosaurs and the bible. Can you elaborate?

[Godzuki]

I wholeheartedly agree with your last paragraph. Except.for the part where you mention dinosaurs and the bible. Can you elaborate?


http://pleaseconvinceme.com/2012/do-dinosaurs-disprove-the-bible/

[97 bulls]

http://pleaseconvinceme.com/2012/do-dinosaurs-disprove-the-bible/
Interesting article. However, I don't see how dinosaurs disprove the word of the bible. Animals were created BEFORE MAN according to the bible. Read Genesis chapter 1. Granted it doesnt use the term "dinosaur" to name any of these animals but it doesnt use any specific name. I'd even say this greater strengthens the validity of God and creation.

So again, what's the point?

[oarabbus]

Interesting article. However, I don't see how dinosaurs disprove the word of the bible. Animals were created BEFORE MAN according to the bible. Read Genesis chapter 1. Granted it doesnt use the term "dinosaur" to name any of these animals but it doesnt use any specific name. I'd even say this greater strengthens the validity of God and creation.

So again, what's the point?


Are you of the opinion that the bible is "right" or "correct" but the Torah, Bhagvad Gita, Illiad/Odyssey, Norse mythology, Egyptian mythology etc is lies?

[97 bulls]

One more thing. In the article you linked, it mentions the question as to were animals able to eat each other and die. Noting in the bible shows that animals didnt die. Only men.

If you notice in Genesis 1, the plants were created before the animals. We know today that even plants need nutrition for survival. And not just water. I see no reason to believe that animals didnt die and thus return to the earth as nutrients for the plants. Earths life cycle.

[97 bulls]

Are you of the opinion that the bible is "right" or "correct" but the Torah, Bhagvad Gita, Illiad/Odyssey, Norse mythology, Egyptian mythology etc is lies?

I dont see how the bible contradicts the creation of dinosaurs (animals) before man.

What do they say?

[oarabbus]

I dont see how the bible contradicts the creation of dinosaurs (animals) before man.

What do they say?


Maybe not that specifically but just as a simple example the kings living for 900 years, magically parting a sea, story of Babel, magically curing lepers, etc, the Bible is chock full of obviously impossible things.

IMO if you look at the Bible (or any of those other texts) as a book of metaphors, stories, examples, and codes to live your life, that's fine. It's a whole different story if you're taking the Bible as literal truth.

[97 bulls]

Maybe not that specifically but just as a simple example the kings living for 900 years, magically parting a sea, story of Babel, magically curing lepers, etc, the Bible is chock full of obviously impossible things.

IMO if you look at the Bible (or any of those other texts) as a book of metaphors, stories, examples, and codes to live your life, that's fine. It's a whole different story if you're taking the Bible as literal truth.
It depends on how you look at it. If you believe in a divine power like me then its not far-reaching. But if you can only believe whats in front of you then it is. I always come back to the question as to how we are created. Not how we have evolved mind you, but how we were created.

now I have some questions for you and science

1. As I asked earlier, how did we get here?

2. Why do we die? Not how do we die mind you, but why?

[Rasheed1]

It depends on how you look at it. If you believe in a divine power like me then its not far-reaching. But if you can only believe whats in front of you then it is. I always come back to the question as to how we are created. Not how we have evolved mind you, but how we were created.

now I have some questions for you and science

1. As I asked earlier, how did we get here?

2. Why do we die? Not how do we die mind you, but why?


Nearly everything dies at some point.. Even the sun will burn out some point. The Earth will be swallowed when the sun expands and then collapses on itself.. The Earth will die too when that happens

here is a good question.. What lives forever?

Is it a good thing to live forever? or is it a man made idea?

Does that living forever, break the order of the universe?

[97 bulls]

Nearly everything dies at some point.. Even the sun will burn out some point. The Earth will be swallowed when the sun expands and then collapses on itself.. The Earth will die too when that happens

here is a good question.. What lives forever?

Is it a good thing to live forever? or is it a man made idea?

Does that living forever, break the order of the universe?
1. God and the Angels

2. Why would it not be? How can it be man's idea when we are programed to not want to perish.

3. Why would it break the order of the universe? My answer is no.


Can you answer my questions? And while your at it, I'd like to know the reasoning for your questions. Do you want to die? How would living forever (under God's laws) be detrimental?

[Rasheed1]

1. God and the Angels

Name something that is observable.. If "God and the Angels" is a legitimate answer, then so is Zeus, Horus, or El, or any deity that supposedly lives forever.


2. Why would it not be? How can it be man's idea when we are programed to not want to perish.

Every creature on this planet is programmed "to not want to perish".. If I corner a cat, or a squirrel and threaten to kill it, it will fight for it's life because it doesn't want to perish.. Mankind is not unique


3. Why would it break the order of the universe? My answer is no.

There is seemingly nothing (that is observable) that lives forever, whereas death is a natural regular occurrence. The universe is built on things being 'born', existing for a time, and then 'dying'.

I cannot think of anything (that is observable) that has no end.. Not even the universe itself.



Can you answer my questions? And while your at it, I'd like to know the reasoning for your questions. Do you want to die? How would living forever (under God's laws) be detrimental?

The reason I asked those questions is because I have never seen or heard of anything that lives for ever, and when I seriously consider what it means to "live forever" it seems to be something that goes against the nature of everything in reality..

I don't look forward to dying, but I am not afraid of it. To me, death is simply a part of the life cycle.. On the day I die, someone new will be born and then it will be their turn to exist for a time.. At the time when our sun collapses, somewhere in the universe a new star will be brewing and it may bring new planets and life with it.. It will be their time

As for living forever being a good thing.. On its surface, living forever sounds like a great idea, but when I seriously consider it, it seems to be a bit unrealistic and illogical (that is my opinion, not trying to insult religion). Im saying, other than the fear of death, what is the reason to want to live forever? A trillion, trillion years from now what will you be doing?? Singing god's praises, for the next hundred trillion years??

[97 bulls]

Name something that is observable.. If "God and the Angels" is a legitimate answer, then so is Zeus, Horus, or El, or any deity that supposedly lives forever.



Every creature on this planet is programmed "to not want to perish".. If I corner a cat, or a squirrel and threaten to kill it, it will fight for it's life because it doesn't want to perish.. Mankind is not unique



There is seemingly nothing (that is observable) that lives forever, whereas death is a natural regular occurrence. The universe is built on things being 'born', existing for a time, and then 'dying'.

I cannot think of anything (that is observable) that has no end.. Not even the universe itself.




The reason I asked those questions is because I have never seen or heard of anything that lives for ever, and when I seriously consider what it means to "live forever" it seems to be something that goes against the nature of everything in reality..

I don't look forward to dying, but I am not afraid of it. To me, death is simply a part of the life cycle.. On the day I die, someone new will be born and then it will be their turn to exist for a time.. At the time when our sun collapses, somewhere in the universe a new star will be brewing and it may bring new planets and life with it.. It will be their time

As for living forever being a good thing.. On its surface, living forever sounds like a great idea, but when I seriously consider it, it seems to be a bit unrealistic and illogical (that is my opinion, not trying to insult religion). Im saying, other than the fear of death, what is the reason to want to live forever? A trillion, trillion years from now what will you be doing?? Singing god's praises, for the next hundred trillion years??
We could be exploring other planets, even inhabiting other galaxies. The possibilities are almost infinite. That's why mankind is supposed to live forever. Or at least a viable reason.

I understand you stance that you can only believe in things that are tangible. But you must be able to explain our existence.

How did we get here?

[miller-time]

We could be exploring other planets, even inhabiting other galaxies. The possibilities are almost infinite. That's why mankind is supposed to live forever. Or at least a viable reason.

I understand you stance that you can only believe in things that are tangible. But you must be able to explain our existence.

How did we get here?

You do understand not knowing something is fine, and just because you don't have the answer doesn't mean you have to make one up right? No one knows how we got here. And that is fine.

The evidence is largely all gone so we have to reverse engineer the process of the origin of life which is having some success. Organic molecules exist in nature outside of living organisms (even in space! http://www.nasa.gov/topics/solarsystem/features/dna-meteorites.html). It is just a matter of figuring out how they came together to form self replicating organisms. The pieces are already there, we just don't have the process of configuration yet.

[97 bulls]

You do understand not knowing something is fine, and just because you don't have the answer doesn't mean you have to make one up right? No one knows how we got here. And that is fine.

The evidence is largely all gone so we have to reverse engineer the process of the origin of life which is having some success. Organic molecules exist in nature outside of living organisms (even in space! http://www.nasa.gov/topics/solarsystem/features/dna-meteorites.html). It is just a matter of figuring out how they came together to form self replicating organisms. The pieces are already there, we just don't have the process of configuration yet.
Then where did the micro organisms come from.something has to start

[miller-time]

Then where did the micro organisms come from.something has to start

Like I said, we don't know. There are some hypotheses explaining the process but they still have a long way to go. The most difficult part for the lay person to understand is how long the process took. When you describe the various stages it sounds like they happened over the course of a day, but in between the stages is millions of years. If you are really interested then watch this 5 minute video, it is pretty basic but it explains some of the ideas of abiogenesis. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3H0RXDrfyZc

[97 bulls]

Like I said, we don't know. There are some hypotheses explaining the process but they still have a long way to go. The most difficult part for the lay person to understand is how long the process took. When you describe the various stages it sounds like they happened over the course of a day, but in between the stages is millions of years. If you are really interested then watch this 5 minute video, it is pretty basic but it explains some of the ideas of abiogenesis. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3H0RXDrfyZc
Ive read a little bit on abiogenesis. I honestly can't see how the concept of something comming from nothing makes any more sense than us being created.

What's more, why would you put so much stock in a concept that is admittedly incomplete?

[miller-time]

Ive read a little bit on abiogenesis. I honestly can't see how the concept of something comming from nothing makes any more sense than us being created.

What's more, why would you put so much stock in a concept that is admittedly incomplete?

Firstly, this is not something coming from nothing. Abiogenesis requires existing chemicals and environments for those chemicals to react with each other - the origin of life itself is very much something from something. Second I put some stock into it because it is based on actual data. Do we have all of the data? No. But we have some data. It makes more sense because it is using processes and evidence that exists before our eyes. We don't need to conjure up imaginary beings or constructs to explain our existence.

We know the Earth was created about 4.3 billion years ago from the remnants of a previous star that went supernova rather than a mystical being putting it there from nothing. We know that different species of animals exist because of natural selection rather than special creation. Why would the origin of life be any different? What reason do you have that rules out a natural process in this case? Just because you don't understand it or because scientists haven't built a working theory yet doesn't make God any more plausible. There isn't even any evidence for God but there is evidence that self replicating molecules exist, that life exists in the universe, that time and time again natural explanations have ruled out supernatural ones, all of those conditions make it infinitely more plausible.

[97 bulls]

Firstly, this is not something coming from nothing. Abiogenesis requires existing chemicals and environments for those chemicals to react with each other - the origin of life itself is very much something from something. Second I put some stock into it because it is based on actual data. Do we have all of the data? No. But we have some data. It makes more sense because it is using processes and evidence that exists before our eyes. We don't need to conjure up imaginary beings or constructs to explain our existence.

We know the Earth was created about 4.3 billion years ago from the remnants of a previous star that went supernova rather than a mystical being putting it there from nothing. We know that different species of animals exist because of natural selection rather than special creation. Why would the origin of life be any different? What reason do you have that rules out a natural process in this case? Just because you don't understand it or because scientists haven't built a working theory yet doesn't make God any more plausible. There isn't even any evidence for God but there is evidence that self replicating molecules exist, that life exists in the universe, that time and time again natural explanations have ruled out supernatural ones, all of those conditions make it infinitely more plausible.
You dont see what your doing. The number 1 No-No in science is dont make your finding conform to your hypothesis. Those scientists are LOOKING for something to dispell the creation belief.

Even if the earth was formed due to a star exploding, where did the star come from? Where did the environment come from? The organisms. All these things have a beginning.

This is creationism strongest argument. You must prove where life got its start. And you can't say it just began because thats no better than the belief of a higher being.

[miller-time]

You dont see what your doing. The number 1 No-No in science is dont make your finding conform to your hypothesis. Those scientists are LOOKING for something to dispell the creation belief.

Who says that? Why do you even think scientists care about the creation belief at all? All they are trying to do is understand more about nature. If it happens to trample on your own religious beliefs then I am sorry but that is the way it is. It isn't designed to disprove religion at all. So much of science came out of religious institutions back in the day (both Christian and Islamic) that to say its very existence is to dispel creationism is ridiculous. When you want to work out how the universe began or how life began you have to use the tools and evidence you have. Conjuring up imaginary beings is the number 1 no-no in science..


Even if the earth was formed due to a star exploding, where did the star come from? Where did the environment come from? The organisms. All these things have a beginning.

You are compiling so many different topics into one problem. Abiogenesis isn't concerned with how the universe began, it assumes that it is there and that is the end of it. If you want to talk about how the universe formed then that is a problem for the cosmologists. Once the universe began however there is no natural reason why life couldn't have formed. The environment is here, how it got here is irrelevant to the problem of life.


This is creationism strongest argument. You must prove where life got its start. And you can't say it just began because thats no better than the belief of a higher being.

Firstly the problem is that that is an argument that creationism itself doesn't live up to because it hasn't proven anything. Secondly no one is saying "it just began." You are reducing dozens of scientific disciplines, thousands of research papers and experiments, and millions of man hours into one overly reductive statement. There is no scientific paper in the world that starts and ends with "it just began." Each paper and each scientist is working on a very small part of the problem.

[97 bulls]

Who says that? Why do you even think scientists care about the creation belief at all? All they are trying to do is understand more about nature. If it happens to trample on your own religious beliefs then I am sorry but that is the way it is. It isn't designed to disprove religion at all. So much of science came out of religious institutions back in the day (both Christian and Islamic) that to say its very existence is to dispel creationism is ridiculous. When you want to work out how the universe began or how life began you have to use the tools and evidence you have. Conjuring up imaginary beings is the number 1 no-no in science..



You are compiling so many different topics into one problem. Abiogenesis isn't concerned with how the universe began, it assumes that it is there and that is the end of it. If you want to talk about how the universe formed then that is a problem for the cosmologists. Once the universe began however there is no natural reason why life couldn't have formed. The environment is here, how it got here is irrelevant to the problem of life.



Firstly the problem is that that is an argument that creationism itself doesn't live up to because it hasn't proven anything. Secondly no one is saying "it just began." You are reducing dozens of scientific disciplines, thousands of research papers and experiments, and millions of man hours into one overly reductive statement. There is no scientific paper in the world that starts and ends with "it just began." Each paper and each scientist is working on a very small part of the problem.
I see your point bro. All im saying is that at some point existence began. How did that happen?

Heres another thing that doesn't make sense. Why do you question the validity of an intelligent creator, or think that strange happenings in history like the great flood, ressurections etc is nothing more than "poppycock", will be willing to believe that men in their 50-60s are capable of telling you what happened over millions of years ago, even though they werent even around, even their species, or even the planet they call home, very extreme conclusions, but you wont believe the sayings of men of things that happened a few thousand years ago.

Whats more, is scientists disagree with each other, Global Warming, the results of food we eat, every scientific subject has a proponent as well as opponents. And both sides have gone through their own extensive research. Past what you have read, why do you believe what these men tell you?

[miller-time]

Heres another thing that doesn't make sense. Why do you question the validity of an intelligent creator, or think that strange happenings in history like the great flood, ressurections etc is nothing more than "poppycock", will be willing to believe that men in their 50-60s are capable of telling you what happened over millions of years ago, even though they werent even around, even their species, or even the planet they call home, very extreme conclusions, but you wont believe the sayings of men of things that happened a few thousand years ago.

For the same reason we accept what a detective says happened at the scene of a crime. You don't have to be there to know what happened. The behavior of matter and energy in nature conforms to certain laws. We are constantly testing these laws of nature and subsequently we can use our findings to both explain and predict what has happened in the past.

For instance we understand how geological strata are formed and we also know that animals living in the past will leave there remains in the strata that was at the top layer during their time period. We therefore can look at a fossil found in a particular layer and tell how old it is. We can accept their claims now because they also have a predictive value. Which is we shouldn't find fossils from animals in the wrong strata. If geological theory is correct then we won't find a horse buried next to a t-Rex or a wolf next to an Iguanodon. This is important because it means that geologists and paleontologists can be proven wrong (which hasn't happened in the few hundred years they've been around). Those sayings from men thousands of years ago can't be.

This applies to all of science though. Science is by no means perfect and it does change over time. This is actually a very good thing. What generally happens is that science is constantly throwing out bad ideas and in doing so is always moving towards the truth. It may never get there but it will always be inching nearer. Discrepancies and disagreements happen, but they more or less occur because of outside political or corporate influence rather than a problem with the scientific method. Also the media has a part to play as well. So many times they will report a medical or health story by taking one line from a paper out of context and claim it is exactly what the paper says.

I should just add, the authors of the bible are far less reliable than modern scientists. A lot of them didn't even write what occurred until a generation or two after the events at the earliest. You should watch this video on the History of God if you are interested in seeing how your bible and god came into existence. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlnnWbkMlbg

[miller-time]

97 bulls dumb as fvk if he's a real person

Possibly trolling, but I'm procrastinating so I'll bite.

[ace23]

your bible
I lol'd

[97 bulls]

Possibly trolling, but I'm procrastinating so I'll bite.
The last thing I need to do is waste time arguing a stance that I don't agree with just for the hell of it. I've respected your opinion thus far and I expect the same. If not, we can end this conversation and see what happens when we die.

[97 bulls]

For the same reason we accept what a detective says happened at the scene of a crime. You don't have to be there to know what happened. The behavior of matter and energy in nature conforms to certain laws. We are constantly testing these laws of nature and subsequently we can use our findings to both explain and predict what has happened in the past.

For instance we understand how geological strata are formed and we also know that animals living in the past will leave there remains in the strata that was at the top layer during their time period. We therefore can look at a fossil found in a particular layer and tell how old it is. We can accept their claims now because they also have a predictive value. Which is we shouldn't find fossils from animals in the wrong strata. If geological theory is correct then we won't find a horse buried next to a t-Rex or a wolf next to an Iguanodon. This is important because it means that geologists and paleontologists can be proven wrong (which hasn't happened in the few hundred years they've been around). Those sayings from men thousands of years ago can't be.
Why? As a poster stated earlier. The Bible doesn't contradict the scientific claim that man came after animals.

This applies to all of science though. Science is by no means perfect and it does change over time. This is actually a very good thing. What generally happens is that science is constantly throwing out bad ideas and in doing so is always moving towards the truth. It may never get there but it will always be inching nearer. Discrepancies and disagreements happen, but they more or less occur because of outside political or corporate influence rather than a problem with the scientific method. Also the media has a part to play as well. So many times they will report a medical or health story by taking one line from a paper out of context and claim it is exactly what the paper says.
These are excuses bro.

I should just add, the authors of the bible are far less reliable than modern scientists. A lot of them didn't even write what occurred until a generation or two after the events at the earliest.
Again, you questioning the validity of the bibles authors based on a record of historical happenings that occured a few generations prior to their life, but then fall in line with the beliefs of men that attempt to answer questions about things that happened 40 million years ago?
You should watch this video on the History of God if you are interested in seeing how your bible and god came into existence. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlnnWbkMlbg


Ill watch the vid when I vet the opportunity

In response to your detective scenario, not the same thing. They dont just go off faith. They need witnesse, DNA, motive, a weapon, timeline, as well as a crime scene.

[ILLsmak]

can't simply blame the internet.. I searched for Jesus for years and found the truth back in 96 (before the explosion of internet websites).. I read many books that had the info that is now displayed on the internet. Internet just makes that much easier to find

did you search for Jesus on google tho?

I think it's funny that people say nothing supernatural happens on earth, but plenty of shit that doesn't really make sense happens. People think that if you can explain something after the fact that it's not supernatural.

But in the same way people can say "lol, secret rocks" when describing the walk on water story, you can pretty much ninja in some explanation with your imagination.

I think it's just cool now to not be religious. It's like you gotta be either smart or religious. Again, kind of funny. I don't consider myself religious, per se, but I def believe in God. As I've said in these threads before, I feel like people who 'only' believe in what they see are missing out on a large part of the world.

As for all of that stuff like... creation story, Santa Claus, virgin birth... if you look at the idea of religion, you realize it doesn't hinge on any of that stuff. Even the religion of Christianity doesn't hinge on the actual existence of Christ. The idea of being a Christian, as well as I can understand, is being "Christ-like" and it's something we are all capable of and there is much information regarding what that would take. I don't think anyone who goes out of their way to be similar to Christ as described in the Bible would be a person that I wouldn't want to hang out with... other than the fact it might make me feel a bit guilty from time to time.

The strong hatred of religion, specifically Christianity, is warranted because there are so many pretend religious people that are like lol btw ur going 2 hell. And it's sad that people want to put that on GOD. It's like dudes got so mad in grade school when someone told them they were going to hell that they made it their life's goal to disprove God.

Mind-blowing.

-Smak

[97 bulls]

http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Scientific-Proof-of-Bible.php



http://www.icr.org/home/resources/resources_tracts_tbiatos/

Id like for you to give your opinion on these links im sending you

[Godzuki]

did you search for Jesus on google tho?

I think it's funny that people say nothing supernatural happens on earth, but plenty of shit that doesn't really make sense happens. People think that if you can explain something after the fact that it's not supernatural.

But in the same way people can say "lol, secret rocks" when describing the walk on water story, you can pretty much ninja in some explanation with your imagination.

I think it's just cool now to not be religious. It's like you gotta be either smart or religious. Again, kind of funny. I don't consider myself religious, per se, but I def believe in God. As I've said in these threads before, I feel like people who 'only' believe in what they see are missing out on a large part of the world.

As for all of that stuff like... creation story, Santa Claus, virgin birth... if you look at the idea of religion, you realize it doesn't hinge on any of that stuff. Even the religion of Christianity doesn't hinge on the actual existence of Christ. The idea of being a Christian, as well as I can understand, is being "Christ-like" and it's something we are all capable of and there is much information regarding what that would take. I don't think anyone who goes out of their way to be similar to Christ as described in the Bible would be a person that I wouldn't want to hang out with... other than the fact it might make me feel a bit guilty from time to time.

The strong hatred of religion, specifically Christianity, is warranted because there are so many pretend religious people that are like lol btw ur going 2 hell. And it's sad that people want to put that on GOD. It's like dudes got so mad in grade school when someone told them they were going to hell that they made it their life's goal to disprove God.

Mind-blowing.

-Smak


its more that people want the bottom line truth instead of smoke and mirrors. I think most people who argue against religion with science lets say probably feel most religious people aren't realistic, and believe in stuff mainly based on being raised a certain way, but not truly based on reason or facts. Its not that people are out to get religion just to spite you all, more that people feel its a mass lie perpetrated over thousands of years based on books written by man, supposedly passed down from God. That is difficult for a realist to accept. It doesn't help many religious people will say stuff like "religion and science can coexist fine" when it just can't if you have studied both.


You also have to wonder with your whole belief in the supernatural, why you haven't seen it more often then. How many times in your lifetime have you seen the supernatural you were sure was the supernatural? I have maybe once and that was apparently explained by Sleep Paralysis. I'm still not sure if i even buy the Sleep Paralysis theory since it seemed so real but i can at least agree the mind can play tricks on people based on their condition.

Basically what i'm saying is why are there so few cases in most peoples lives of seeing the supernatural, if the supernatural does in fact exist? if magic exists why can't anyone do magic? why do the laws of science always hold true and is everywhere, and the complete opposite of someone able to fly lets say? There is just really nothing in this world over thousands of years that is so unexplainable and blatantly other worldly magical or supernatural, and you would think over that span SOMETHING would have had us scratching our heads on a world scale, right? Something that would at least corroborate the supernatural on some level truly exists that leaves scientists befuddled. Maybe someone born who can fly? maybe someone born who had psychic powers to really move stuff? maybe someone born who can directly prove to you they talk to God, and can prove it by predicting what is going to happen every 5 seconds? Something like that...

Like i said i've always wanted to believe there was something but at this point and over so many years of reading everything that suggested it was supernatural, it all just feels like one big hoax, scam, lighting effect, or something along those lines from somebody. If not their minds manipulating people into seeing things for whatever reasons(sleep paralysis, wanting to believe in something, etc)). I just feel if it existed at all there would be more obvious supernatural events that occur like laws of physics where we see that every day. If its a truth then it has to happen with more regularity i figure, and be seen/proven by this point but it never is.

[Godzuki]

I wholeheartedly agree with your last paragraph. Except.for the part where you mention dinosaurs and the bible. Can you elaborate?

you know the other thing that bothers me about how people interpret religious texts these days to suit their lives? Its that being religious was never easy. Nobody in any Bible lesson pretended to adapt what was written and remake it like people do today to fit whats acceptable to today's standards. Being faithful to God was VERY difficult, it was always a constant test of temptations, and living your life in a very moral way. Many of the apostles went through so much to prove their faith to God where they were persecuted, while many people of today who call themselves religious are basically sinning constantly, then always using 'God forgives' as their fall back.

Its just a completely different religious reality than what the Bible preaches and tells through its lessons/stories than how people pretend to be so religious today. Its like sinning first and all of the time, then using one line to make it easy and excuse it all that 'God forgives'. I just cna't take it seriously, mostly when people have the audacity to think they can adapt scripture, or rather Gods book to man, to their own as they go 'interpretations' to make it all convenient. The whole idea of that even if i believed in a almighty being is ridiculous.

[miller-time]

Ill watch the vid when I vet the opportunity

In response to your detective scenario, not the same thing. They dont just go off faith. They need witnesse, DNA, motive, a weapon, timeline, as well as a crime scene.

You don't need all of those things all of the time. Cases can be solved without any number of those things present. Plenty of crimes don't have witnesses, if I murdered you in a room and no one else was there does there need to be a witness for me to be found guilty? Can other evidence be used? Motive implys intent and while there might not be a conscious intent behind the events in nature nature is always constantly trying to find an equalibrium. The reason things happened in the past (from continental drift to a specific organic chemical reaction) is because the physical laws of the universe "prefer" changes in state. So we have motive in a sense. DNA is just a piece of natural evidence like anything else - rocks, fossils, chemical reactions, physical reactions etc. A weapon is crime specific but again it is just a piece of evidence. Timelines are very relevant to scientific discovery. Every single thing in science is tied to a timeline because nearly everything in science relates to change over time in some way. The crime scene is the same as a dig, or a chemical reaction in a lab, or light from a star hitting a telescopic mirror, it is just the event that is being studied.

So to tick off the boxes. Witness? Not necessary but happens for all modern experiments. Motive? Check - nature finding equalibrium. DNA? Check - piece of evidence. Weapon? Check - piece of evidence. Timeline? Check - time is everything. Crime scene? Check - the event being studied.

[rufuspaul]

LOL wtf?

Make a ****ing logical argument instead of pretending like someone who works a job is automatically right about everything because he works that job, without reasonable explanation.


This is one of the dumbest replies i've ever seen. Way to quote people who aren't explaining anything to say they're right because of their job titles that both can coexist. i mean could you at least post their explanations on how they make it all fit, or your explanation of what i said to counter how they contradict each other? Thats really the bottom line here.

I mean if you have even the tiniest bit of logic in your head you could see that a theory on evolution contradicts that God created Adam and Eve first. Or the many other things written in Genesis that does not correlate with science.

Furthermore there are 'new age religious people' these days who make shit up to fit in terms of whats accepted today. Whether thats gays being accepted by God, or fitting in evolution or dinosaurs, or the Big Bang with religion. they adapt the bible so much from its original tenets that is funny to me they can even pretend they're speaking for God in how they pretend to adapt it to today's standards/reason. They call the fundamentalists crazy but at least the fundamentalists are adhering to original texts, and not man adapted watered down versions.


This is Godzuki's way of saying TL,DR. Or in his case TLRPTSTU (too long, read part, too stupid to understand).

Your Adam and Eve comparison to evolution shows how stupid you really are. You of all people should not be taking a literal interpretation of the bible any more than a religious person should reject science because he doesn't understand. Dumb, dumb dumb. But I wouldn't expect any less from you at this point.

[Godzuki]

This is Godzuki's way of saying TL,DR. Or in his case TLRPTSTU (too long, read part, too stupid to understand).

Your Adam and Eve comparison to evolution shows how stupid you really are. You of all people should not be taking a literal interpretation of the bible any more than a religious person should reject science because he doesn't understand. Dumb, dumb dumb. But I wouldn't expect any less from you at this point.


You have to be one of the biggest poosies on this forum. Not even talking about all the arguing and beefing that goes on here but in terms of you giving a real opinion. Like actually cover some bases, making a real argument like i asked earlier. all you do is talk in these obscure generalities because youre a poosy.

call me dumb i don't care, all i know is you're a straight up poosy. Scared to throw your argument out there in fear of getting ridiculed and shot down so you respond with garbage like this all of the time lol.

[97 bulls]

You don't need all of those things all of the time. Cases can be solved without any number of those things present. Plenty of crimes don't have witnesses, if I murdered you in a room and no one else was there does there need to be a witness for me to be found guilty? Can other evidence be used? Motive implys intent and while there might not be a conscious intent behind the events in nature nature is always constantly trying to find an equalibrium. The reason things happened in the past (from continental drift to a specific organic chemical reaction) is because the physical laws of the universe "prefer" changes in state. So we have motive in a sense. DNA is just a piece of natural evidence like anything else - rocks, fossils, chemical reactions, physical reactions etc. A weapon is crime specific but again it is just a piece of evidence. Timelines are very relevant to scientific discovery. Every single thing in science is tied to a timeline because nearly everything in science relates to change over time in some way. The crime scene is the same as a dig, or a chemical reaction in a lab, or light from a star hitting a telescopic mirror, it is just the event that is being studied.

So to tick off the boxes. Witness? Not necessary but happens for all modern experiments. Motive? Check - nature finding equalibrium. DNA? Check - piece of evidence. Weapon? Check - piece of evidence. Timeline? Check - time is everything. Crime scene? Check - the event being studied.
My point was to show in response to your detective scenario, that in order to get a conviction, you need irrefutable evidence.

I refute your scientific claim because they base their findings of what happened in the past largely on whats happening today. As if there is a constant.

I don't profess to follow science past what I learned in highschool and a little in college and ive forgotten most of it. But lets take for instance how scientists determine the age of the earth. Scientists estimate (which by definition isnt exact) that the earth is 4 billion years old or however old based on the decay of radioactivty in rocks. As if those rocks see the exact same conditions year in and out. And mind you the estimated age of the earth has changed many times.

I liken it to baking a cake. Even if you apply the exact same ingredients every time (likened to the rock), the outcome depends largely on the temperature of the oven being used and the time (which is tantamount to the weather and climate). How do scientists know how.the weather and climate was on a daily basis over 4 million years ago? Hell some scientists today feel our climate has changed greatly based on what man has done.

And as I stated earlier in another post. Science is fallible. I remember when scientists claimed that it was healthy to eat plenty of red meat. That's no longer true. Or that it was healthy to drink raw eggs.

You even admit that science isnt infallible when you stated in another post that it.constantly changes.

[miller-time]

My point was to show in response to your detective scenario, that in order to get a conviction, you need irrefutable evidence.

I refute your scientific claim because they base their findings of what happened in the past largely on whats happening today. As if there is a constant.

So you are basically (for no other reason than to dismiss scientific evidence) saying that the laws of the universe were different in the past than they are today? OK so shoot, what evidence do you have that one single law existing today was different in the past?

[Dunaprenti]

And as I stated earlier in another post. Science is fallible. I remember when scientists claimed that it was healthy to eat plenty of red meat. That's no longer true. Or that it was healthy to drink raw eggs.


Scientific method: a method or procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.
This is the definiton from the Oxford dictionary.
No religion questions or modifies itself. It's the absolute truth from the get go.
Have you ever changed your opinion on something based on new facts you discovered? If you haven't I question your sanity.

Also, who are the "scientists" who claimed those things? Please link me.

[97 bulls]

So you are basically (for no other reason than to dismiss scientific evidence) saying that the laws of the universe were different in the past than they are today? OK so shoot, what evidence do you have that one single law existing today was different in the past?
Lol. Things do change Miller. For you to argue such is a direct contradiction to your own belief. Don't you feel mankind evolves? Why wouldn't everything else do the same?

[97 bulls]

Scientific method: a method or procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.
This is the definiton from the Oxford dictionary.
No religion questions or modifies itself. It's the absolute truth from the get go.
Have you ever changed your opinion on something based on new facts you discovered? If you haven't I question your sanity.

Also, who are the "scientists" who claimed those things? Please link me.
Lol. Do the research yourself. I just did a couple Google searches and it brought up plenty of info on the good and bad points of eating eggs. As with all studies, some Doctors feel eating a limited amount of eggs are ok because they are high in protien. But other doctors say not to because they are also high in cholesterol. Even going so far as to say only eat the whites.

As far as red meat, I remember watching "the Brady Bunch movie". It was about family that was stuck in the seventies even though it was the late 90s. In one scene, the mother was doing some shopping for the family at a butcher's meat store. She orders a bunch of red meat and one of her neighbors comments on how thats not healthy. She replies that she needs it because it is.

Im 40 years old. I remember back when I was a kid how it was encouraged to eat red meat. Then as I became a teenager and then young adult, it no longer was considered a good idea to eat red meat.

[97 bulls]

Have you ever changed your opinion on something based on new facts you discovered? If you haven't I question your sanity.
Off course I have. But you can't compare this to God. God is perfect and thus has no reason to change. We as men aren't. So we are constantly updating our stance on all facets of life.

[miller-time]

Lol. Things do change Miller. For you to argue such is a direct contradiction to your own belief. Don't you feel mankind evolves? Why wouldn't everything else do the same?

Those are changes within a system which are influenced by the laws of the universe. I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about the universal constants, the laws themself. The speed of light, the attractive force of gravity, the effect of heat and pressure on an object. Those things have remained constant and scientists can use those constants to figure out what exactly happened in the past. Even if they have changed within Earths history (of 4.3 billion years) the possible difference wouldn't have been dramatic enough to create a significant difference in how things behaved back then compared to now. If they were orders of magnitude different then the entire system would break down and we wouldn't even be here.