Religon Vs. Science

[Human]

Science doesn't say anything - people do

Science is a tool - people use

If it isn't observable, testable, or repeatable it's not Science

Evolution and Creation are historical accounts - which one are you going to believe?


I wish we could learn the difference here and stop saying Religion says - that assume false religion says, and then Science says that assumes Science to be the end all be all. I find it hard to take anyone serious who uses the term religion when referring to Christianity or the Bible

Would you, if presented with footsteps in the snow along the footpath (sidewalk), complete with treadmarks from the distinct v-shaped pattern on the sole, conclude that a person had walked down the street in shoes with a v-shaped pattern on the sole?

This is simple ''historical'' analysis of a situation. You did not observe the person walking, but you know beyond any reasonable doubt (saying ''aliens could have planted them as deliberate design to fool me'' is really not reasonable) that a person has walked down the street from the time the snow was laid until the time you have observed the footsteps.

So it is absolutely possible to observe and analyze past events and come to conclusions that are beyond reasonable doubt, and given the weight and sheer amount of evidence, experiments and analysis across various disciplines and specialist fields, evolution is one such conclusion.

 

[MarcR]

Because some (very few, relatively) scientists are creationists, but generally, if you pick their arguments apart, they are logically flawed (Ken Ham, for instance, whose arguments jump and change and move between scientific evidence and blind religious assertion, or scientific evidence and implantation of divinity in the gaps). Then there's always the alternative type of creation scientist, the one who says ''everything happened exactly like all the secular scientists say it did, but GOD WAS INVOLVED AND MADE IT HAPPEN''.

In all cases, they are implanting their belief into the science; the science is not necessarily bringing them to a conclusion of religious belief, and if it is, it's almost always out of ''wow I just can't get my head around this, it must have been God''.

The genetic code of a paramecium is quite complex. If it could be linguistically presented it would require at least a 300 word essay. The notion of information being created by random events is far more improbable than creation.

 

[larz]

Good Day, But God is still the best.

I humbly recommend an answer. I do not know any hard-research but I have a simple question that is actually my answer.

If evolution is true, then humans could have originated from a smaller form of life. A bacteria? A tadpole? I do not know that. But why is it that every generation, our DNA is deteriorating if evolution suggested that we excelled and exceeded our bacteria and monkey ancestors in form and brains?

 

[Human]

The genetic code of a paramecium is quite complex. If it could be linguistically presented it would require at least a 300 word essay. The notion of information being created by random events is far more improbable than creation.

I think the way you frame that statement misrepresents evolutionary theory by using the word ''chance'', and I disagree with the inference that chemistry can't provide the complexity necessary for further complex interactions leading to the development of interdependent chemical systems. Biohemistry is not ''chance''. Biochemistry by its nature produces complex products that interact in complex ways to produce further complex products by the mechanisms inherent in chemical form.

To say ''it's too complex to come about on its own, and what if it were different'' is to beg questions from the anthropic principle, which is genuinely meaningless and futile to do. It's the way it is, and if it wasn't it would be another way. We can't possibly know what alternatives (if any) there are for universal form and the exchange of energy assuming an alternative universe would even have a concept such as 'energy'. We simple can't know.

And you are begging questions that can't possibly lead to answers in that regard. You're saying ''by my reckoing this universe is too complex, thus God''. But you can't possibly prove or disprove that notion. It is an attribution of personal value judgement regarding the probability of the universe being the way that it is ''on its own''.

I'm afraid, my friend, that the probability of anything being the way that it is, is absolutely and irrefutably one hundred percent probability. Things are as they are.

 

[ColinCat]

I think the way you frame that statement misrepresents evolutionary theory by using the word ''chance'', and I disagree with the inference that chemistry can't provide the complexity necessary for further complex interactions leading to the development of interdependent chemical systems. Biohemistry is not ''chance''. Biochemistry by its nature produces complex products that interact in complex ways to produce further complex products by the mechanisms inherent in chemical form.

To say ''it's too complex to come about on its own, and what if it were different'' is to beg questions from the anthropic principle, which is genuinely meaningless and futile to do. It's the way it is, and if it wasn't it would be another way. We can't possibly know what alternatives (if any) there are for universal form and the exchange of energy assuming an alternative universe would even have a concept such as 'energy'. We simple can't know.

And you are begging questions that can't possibly lead to answers in that regard. You're saying ''by my reckoing this universe is too complex, thus God''. But you can't possibly prove or disprove that notion. It is an attribution of personal value judgement regarding the probability of the universe being the way that it is ''on its own''.

I'm afraid, my friend, that the probability of anything being the way that it is, is absolutely and irrefutably one hundred percent probability. Things are as they are.

Like Ive said before, The majority of these arguments are "I don't know... Therefore God". Or "I can't explain this... Therefore God"

Everyone here is aware that "I Don't Know" has spawned nearly every myth that has ever come about. When there is a gap in the knowledge then we come with all sorts of explanations to try and explain things. Eventually we gain knowledge and the myths disappear.

Before astronomy there was astrology, before chemistry there was alchemy and before science there were gods... Gods who pulled the sun across the sky, gods who poisoned the water of opposing tribes, gods who shot lightning bolts from the sky, gods who caused raging seas and volcanoes to erupt.

If we were to have this conversation a few hundred years ago then we could have well been killed for it. But we know so much more about the world now the church has had to give up so much ground and relinquish so much power.

Eventually even more gaps in knowledge will be filled.. Maybe not all of them, but for each gap that is filled, the gods lose more credibility.

 

[Human]

Like Ive said before, The majority of these arguments are "I don't know... Therefore God". Or "I can't explain this... Therefore God"

Everyone here is aware that "I Don't Know" has spawned nearly every myth that has ever come about. When there is a gap in the knowledge then we come with all sorts of explanations to try and explain things. Eventually we gain knowledge and the myths disappear.

Before astronomy there was astrology, before chemistry there was alchemy and before science there were gods... Gods who pulled the sun across the sky, gods who poisoned the water of opposing tribes, gods who shot lightning bolts from the sky, gods who caused raging seas and volcanoes to erupt.

If we were to have this conversation a few hundred years ago then we could have well been killed for it. But we know so much more about the world now the church has had to give up so much ground and relinquish so much power.

Eventually even more gaps in knowledge will be filled.. Maybe not all of them, but for each gap that is filled, the gods lose more credibility.

Absolutely.

What gets to me though, is not ignorance that the information that fills many of the ''Gods of the gaps'' exists, but that when presented with it, here, for instance, most people won't even bother to read it and will continue to make long disproved claims about origins or about evolution or about this or about that.

I don't mind when someone genuinely doesn't know or understand, but when someone willingly continues not to understand or willingly denies to even read the evidence about say ''what evolution is'' or to inform themselves of what scientsits actually claim as opposed to what religious people claim scientists claim, it's disheartening, and it's disheartening because ultimately the denial stems from fear.

There are thousands of brilliant, devoutly religious scientists, experts in their fields, pumping out peer reviewed accurate information on astronomy and astrophysics, on evolution and on biochemistry, and yet many evangelicals (though I notice it's more commonly Americans) simply refuse to read it and instead turn to the likes of Ken Ham, who anybody with a scientific brain (you and I) can pick holes in all day long -- we don't even need to be astrophysicists to do it, because it's basic biology, basic geology, basic evolutionary theory.

 

[JustinFromTwinCities]

Faith is not blind as so many like to state.
I would not worship a false God just because it was culturally acceptable. I care nothing for culture, but only truth.

The Word of God will withstand any level of criticism. It will prove itself to be devoid of error and contradiction. It proves itself to be true historically, philosophically, scientifically (not that the Bible holds to every modern scientific theory, but theories are just that, theories. And the creation of theories is based on observations of the physical evidence but is subject to the presuppositions and worldview of those who are creating them) and ethically.

If it did not, then how could we claim it was of God? I would not, but I would reject it in it's entirety as I have rejected all other "religions" for their logical inconsistencies, doctrinal contradictions, historical inaccuracies, shallow attempts at religiosity, and failure to convey any depth at describing who we are, why we are here and what is the cause of all the problems that are so prevalent in ourselves/the world.

If God truly created man, then He gave us a rational mind. And if He gave us a rational mind, He must expect us to use it.

 

[JustinFromTwinCities]

To give you insight into what I mean about scientific theories being subject to the presuppositions of those who create them, consider this.

Carbon dating is based on the assumption that the earth has been in existence long enough to reach and surpass the half life of carbon many many times over.

If that assumption was false, then so would be their interpretation of the evidence.

Just a couple of random areas of science that truly scream the existence of a creator are:

The study of DNA (and the non-existent mechanism which is required for the evolution of species), the metamorphosis of butterflies, particle physics, the failed theory of biochemical evolution (even the founder and author of the theory has, after years of research concluded that it simply is not possible and became a follower of Christ), the amazing complexity of all cells even single celled organisms and many many more. As ultimately, all evidence most point to that which is true.

For every scientific theory that attempts to understand the world apart from the existence of God, there are much more plausible and scientific theories which include the existence of God. It is not pseudo science by uneducated men. It is science which has at its foundation, the belief (or at least consider the possibility) that God exists. Both cannot be true. He either exists or He does not.

 

[JustinFromTwinCities]

What answers do these mainstream scientists have for our existence?
Those who boldly and without evidence, declare that the concept of a creator is for the ignorant?

A big bang? Is that the best they can come up with? An endless and infinite series of big bangs with no known cause? What proof do they have that space itself, and all matter in existence has been created out of nothing and for no reason? It violates everything that the physical sciences declare to be true.

They have turned from wisdom, instead choosing "blind faith" as the foundation for their worldview.

They have already decided for themselves that which they will hold to be true, without ever questioning their presuppositions. They have already determined exactly how they will perceive the physical world.
And anyone who strays from that faulty assumption is ridiculed and dismissed as a fraud and a fool by their peers. Never again to find work in the field they enjoy.

1 Corinthians 1:18
For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19 For it is written,

“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise,
and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart.”

20 Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21 For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe. 22 For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, 23 but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, 24 but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25 For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

26 For consider your calling, brothers: not many of you were wise according to worldly standards,[c] not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth. 27 But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong; 28 God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are, 29 so that no human being[d] might boast in the presence of God. 30 And because of him[e] you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, righteousness and sanctification and redemption, 31 so that, as it is written, “Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord.”

There are many great scientists who are willing to consider or believe in the existence of a creator.
I can list some if you would like.

 

[JustinFromTwinCities]

Psalm 14
The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.”
They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds,
there is none who does good.
2 The Lord looks down from heaven on the children of man,
to see if there are any who understand,
who seek after God.
3 They have all turned aside; together they have become corrupt;
there is none who does good,
not even one.
4 Have they no knowledge, all the evildoers
who eat up my people as they eat bread
and do not call upon the Lord?


When I consider the science produced by those who call themselves atheists, all I see are endless attempts to disprove the existence of God. But when the evidence they present is considered, their theories fall very short of that goal. Always sidestepping the glaringly obvious conclusion which must be drawn.

I myself have believed in the theory of evolution. I even believed that maybe evolution and Christianity could both be true and exist harmoniously. It wasn't until I studied evolution in depth that I realized it is a garbage theory which doesn't even make sense logically.

If evolution is a completely unguided process, caused by the random mutations of DNA. Then why would it be advantageous for (take the eye for example) to begin to form and develop? Why would the skull begin to hollow out by its own accord over millions of years? Then what benefit would it serve the species to begin to grow useless blobs (as all the random mutations necessary to make that eye even somewhat usable would take millions of years to occur) in that hollow place?

If it is a random process, than how could every species, regardless of phylum have perfectly developed and working eyes. And two of them, perfectly placed at that. DNA would not stop mutating once "perfection" was reached. It would not even reach perfection.

The random processes of evolution, would naturally produce completely random mutations.
So where are all the genetic abnormalities within the species? Where are all the countless unformed unusable structures that would be in development at this very moment? The structures that will only become useful to a species after many millions of years?

If, you accept the theory that a single celled organism (which is amazingly complex) managed to pop into existence from a soup of amino acids. Then how did it have the genetic code necessary to duplicate itself? And when did that genetic code decide, "Hey, I better program myself to start acting in unison with other single celled organisms to create lifeforms which contain many billions of cells. I should program myself to be a kidney wall cell. I should go tell all my other cellular buddies my plan and maybe we can devise a way to create the more complex multi cellular forms of life."

And then once they accomplished making a fish or whatever by working together with great intelligence, how did they realize that they should also create reproductive organs. Some male and some female, and that some of the cells should be sperm while others eggs?

If fish were among the first to evolve, then the very first fish needed to be able to have fully formed reproductive organs and eggs to continue itself with its offspring. How would that be accomplished over millions of years? It would never work no matter how much time you gave it.

DNA is the most complex intelligent coding known to man. It is a much more sophisticated version of computer code. It is an incomprehensibly complex language, which could not be created by chance any more than your computer could write its own OS by chance. ( a task which would be trivial in comparison)

When did the caterpillar (which has no reproductive organs) decide (one day after millions of years of self replication), "I think I'm going to create organs capable of producing silk. Then I am going to put myself into a cocoon, dissolve myself into a cellular soup, and create an entire new version of myself. Retaining none of my previous characteristics or organs. I am going to create wings to fly (because I always wanted to fly) and reproductive organs (because I always wanted to reproduce with other butterflies, who hopefully also choose to do the exact same thing I am going to do) and then I am going to migrate all over the world to meet with my friends (who hopefully choose to do what I am going to do) to reproduce in very specific locations each and every year.

"Then we will all collectively stop self replicating (however they supposedly did that) and enjoy our new existence."

The answer is they couldn't have chosen to do anything, because evolution is completely random and takes "millions of years" to make it supposedly plausible.

 

[JustinFromTwinCities]

It is a garbage theory, yet it is proclaimed to be true.

Why? Because they can't come up with anything better. Because their interpretation of the evidence is based on the presupposition that God certainly could never exist. They have strayed far from logic and instead choose to live by "blind faith"

 

[JustinFromTwinCities]

Like Ive said before, The majority of these arguments are "I don't know... Therefore God". Or "I can't explain this... Therefore God"

Everyone here is aware that "I Don't Know" has spawned nearly every myth that has ever come about. When there is a gap in the knowledge then we come with all sorts of explanations to try and explain things. Eventually we gain knowledge and the myths disappear.

Before astronomy there was astrology, before chemistry there was alchemy and before science there were gods... Gods who pulled the sun across the sky, gods who poisoned the water of opposing tribes, gods who shot lightning bolts from the sky, gods who caused raging seas and volcanoes to erupt.

If we were to have this conversation a few hundred years ago then we could have well been killed for it. But we know so much more about the world now the church has had to give up so much ground and relinquish so much power.

Eventually even more gaps in knowledge will be filled.. Maybe not all of them, but for each gap that is filled, the gods lose more credibility.

This gives you an example of the logic used by believers in the gospel of evolution and atheism.

They start from the worldview that God does not exist.
And then build upon that foundation.
They do not objectively consider the evidence, because ultimately they believe that the modern "God" of science apart from God, will somehow answer all of our questions. "We are just too ignorant at this time to understand"

Do they have any answers, no. They just say we are ignorant because we believe God already gave us the answers.
They sound so enlightened saying things like, "You just believe in a god of the gaps" "You're a foolish Bible believer"
Yet, they are the ones who reject what is logical for something illogical.

 

[JustinFromTwinCities]

They are the ones saying, "We have no idea how we came to be. But we know for sure YOU are not right"

 

[JustinFromTwinCities]

Hopefully, you will be able to see the importance of a persons worldview. It is the framework which determines the limits of everything they feel, think, say and do.

We do not believe in a God of the gaps. We believe God created everything. They believe in a "god" of the gaps, gaps which they have no possibility of filling.

Anyone can poke holes in something.

Do not let them sway or corner you with their hollow philosophies, avoidance of the important questions and "intellectual" intimidation. They will always try to focus on some tiny little detaill of this or that, anything they can grasp at to try to justify their position that God does not exist. It doesn't matter what clever little theory they come up with, it won't answer or prove anything.Do not let them claim that they are "right" simply because they deny the existence of God and do not have the answers.

That is the worst proof of being "right" I have ever heard.

 

[twotwo]

Brought up in a household with no encouragement to find my faith, I was left to find God on my own. Through the years I've struggled trying to understand how science and the bible tell the same past. My heart tells me God is there but science is factual.

According to the bible, our Earth is only 6,000 years old. Science tells us the world is actually 4.54 BILLION years old. Evidence of this comes from fossils and artifacts. A big confusion to me is the era of dinosaurs and why they aren't specifically mentioned in the Bible. In addition, there are many fossils that date back to millions of years ago.

I've never believed in evolution but recently evidence has shown that all dogs descend from wolfs. If this is true, this transition would've taken thousands and thousands of years. Much longer than 6,000 short years. And of course this raises the question of evolution. Still, I have a hard time believing we come from monkeys. (Again I do not believe in evolution- my example is in reference to the timeline of creation.)

The list of science examples can go on and on. I love science but the more I learn the more I question God and that terrifies me. Please help

Scientific claims are always based on observation. There is no place for subjectivity. Everything can be verified through experiments.

Religious claims are always based on what other people said. There is no way to confirm or deny what is claimed. Everything is debatable.

 

[JustinFromTwinCities]

Absolutely.

What gets to me though, is not ignorance that the information that fills many of the ''Gods of the gaps'' exists, but that when presented with it, here, for instance, most people won't even bother to read it and will continue to make long disproved claims about origins or about evolution or about this or about that.

I visited the website listed here. A couple random things it states:

Claim CA202:


Evolution has not been, and cannot be, proved. We cannot even see evolution (beyond trivially small change), much less test it experimentally.
Source:


Morris, Henry M. 1985. Scientific Creationism. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, pp. 4-6.
Response:


Nothing in the real world can be proved with absolute certainty. However, high degrees of certainty can be reached. In the case of evolution, we have huge amounts of data from diverse fields. Extensive evidence exists in all of the following different forms (Theobald 2004). Each new piece of evidence tests the rest.


1.All life shows a fundamental unity in the mechanisms of replication, heritability, catalysis, and metabolism.


<<If common sense is used, this lends much more credibility to God than to the theory of evolution. Because random genetic mutation would result in observable random abnormalities widespread all throughout creation. Symmetry, for example, would not exist, as symmetry is not random.>>


2. Different lines of evidence give the same arrangement of the tree of life. We get essentially the same results whether we look at morphological, biochemical, or genetic traits.


<<again, they use the argument of "everything is in it's place" to try to prove their theory, but it subtracts from the credibility of their theory>>


3.Fossil animals fit in the same tree of life. We find several cases of transitional forms in the fossil record.


<<This is speculation, and notice they only have a couple of showable examples. If it was all random, there would be infinite examples>>


4.The fossils appear in a chronological order, showing change consistent with common descent over hundreds of millions of years and inconsistent with sudden creation.


<<More speculation based on their assumptions>>


5.Many organisms show rudimentary, vestigial characters, such as sightless eyes or wings useless for flight.


<<More speculation. Prove to us how these couple examples you point to have no use.>>


6.Atavisms sometimes occur. An atavism is the reappearance of a character present in a distant ancestor but lost in the organism's immediate ancestors. We only see atavisms consistent with organisms' evolutionary histories.


<<Atavisms being "throwbacks" is just another theory. They are using a theory to try to prove another theory which in turn is used to prove the inital theory>>


7.Ontogeny (embryology and developmental biology) gives information about the historical pathway of an organism's evolution. For example, as embryos whales and many snakes develop hind limbs that are reabsorbed before birth.


<<theory, speculation>>




and on and on blah blah blah.

 

[JustinFromTwinCities]

Like Ive said before, The majority of these arguments are "I don't know... Therefore God". Or "I can't explain this... Therefore God"

Everyone here is aware that "I Don't Know" has spawned nearly every myth that has ever come about. When there is a gap in the knowledge then we come with all sorts of explanations to try and explain things. Eventually we gain knowledge and the myths disappear.

Yes, and notice ColinCat is using his "I don't know" to justify his myth that God is false.

Before astronomy there was astrology, before chemistry there was alchemy and before science there were gods... Gods who pulled the sun across the sky, gods who poisoned the water of opposing tribes, gods who shot lightning bolts from the sky, gods who caused raging seas and volcanoes to erupt.

Just a bunch of nonsense. Trying to say that one thing equals that, so he must be right. No substance here only pseudo-intellectual intimidation

If we were to have this conversation a few hundred years ago then we could have well been killed for it. But we know so much more about the world now the church has had to give up so much ground and relinquish so much power.

What does this have to do with anything?

Eventually even more gaps in knowledge will be filled.. Maybe not all of them, but for each gap that is filled, the gods lose more credibility.

You just keep praying that those gaps will be filled, maybe your science god will hear you and remove that pesky conscience

 

[popeye]

It is a garbage theory, yet it is proclaimed to be true.

Why? Because they can't come up with anything better. Because their interpretation of the evidence is based on the presupposition that God certainly could never exist. They have strayed far from logic and instead choose to live by "blind faith"

Bingo!
Atheism is a religion. Its's bible is darwins origin of the species,its altar is the abortion table,its blood sacrifice is the unborn humans murdered in the name of their main god,pleasure,its priests are the school teachers and professors,its churches are the schools and colleges,its false profits are those in the media,and it's statement of faith is evolution.

 

[popeye]

Scientific claims are always based on observation. There is no place for subjectivity. Everything can be verified through experiments.

Religious claims are always based on what other people said. There is no way to confirm or deny what is claimed. Everything is debatable.

Evolution is based on theory. Not observation.

Its like going into the bowels of a ship with the engine,stairs,gauges and someone thinks "wow,this took millions of years to "evolve",therefore we will only explore that THEORY.

You have zero observation except that we can observe hands down there is not one fossil showing any transition.

 

[stabbo]

Brought up in a household with no encouragement to find my faith, I was left to find God on my own. Through the years I've struggled trying to understand how science and the bible tell the same past. My heart tells me God is there but science is factual.

According to the bible, our Earth is only 6,000 years old. Science tells us the world is actually 4.54 BILLION years old. Evidence of this comes from fossils and artifacts. A big confusion to me is the era of dinosaurs and why they aren't specifically mentioned in the Bible. In addition, there are many fossils that date back to millions of years ago.

I've never believed in evolution but recently evidence has shown that all dogs descend from wolfs. If this is true, this transition would've taken thousands and thousands of years. Much longer than 6,000 short years. And of course this raises the question of evolution. Still, I have a hard time believing we come from monkeys. (Again I do not believe in evolution- my example is in reference to the timeline of creation.)

The list of science examples can go on and on. I love science but the more I learn the more I question God and that terrifies me. Please help

Are you worried that if science paints a diffrent picture of the universe than what the bible does, you will have to throw one out