Mortal enemies, friends, or strangers?
No, I won't use the whole "Enemies friends strangers" thing at all, I just used it for the whole basis.
You see, everybody sees the relationship between science and religion as either mortal enemies, as in conflicting, friends, as in working together and supporting each other, or strangers, as in completely parallel (AKA the belief held by many that religion should keep to morality and science should keep to facts).
From what i've seen, the majority either see them as conflicting or parallel, when in fact they do not contradict each other, for the most part. Being a former Christian, a former Atheist, a former Agnostic-Atheist (I know, very small difference between that and Atheist but I may as well put it), as well as a current evolutionist/theist (i'm still looking for a name to classify it under), i've been at the religious and the non-religious side of the spectrum, so don't think i'm some pulpet pounding preacher screaming "praise the lord" while rejecting all science, my religious beliefs are based on the co-operation of science and religion.
The reasons I believe this are simple, I see no contradicting factors in the Christian Bible or even theism in general (some sub-theist classifications there are some) and science. In fact, I believe that theism and science complete each other in general. Allow me to put some examples of this below, any argument against them is desired.
1) The Cambrian Explosion
For any who don't know, the Cambrian Explosion is a time in history that fossils who came from that time period which are vastly more advance than fossils found from time periods before it. This has been unexplainable, with some of the explanations being "Too soft bodied", where fossils of supposedly soft bodied creatures were found before this. If you bring a creator into the picture who used evolutionary processes yet simply put in more advanced species into the picture, then it gets explained.
2) The Big Bang
This has been a very debated topic, and is one of the widely accepted theories of how the universe was created. I believe that it happened, however was caused by a creator. People have pelted me with questions, all of which reflected the same basic skeptism: "If spontanious creation is impossible by the very laws of nature, then where could a creator have come from?" And I did in fact concede that question to them in the past, for I had no answer. But after thinking about it quite a bit, and reading into the bible more, which i'll confess I didn't read much before this point, I found the answer. As an infinite past is impossible (I'll explain that later) there needed to be a cause for the effect of the big bang. A creator that transcends time and space would not have an infinite past, for finite and infinite are terms referring to time and other mathmatical figures if used literally, both of which only exist within our time/space dimension, therefore a creator transcending both is not infinite for he has always existed outside of time and space confinements.
How science completes religion:
You may have noticed that I have only given reasons why religion completes science, and I realized that as I was typing it. I'll try to confine this to a considerably shorter text so as to avoid an unnecassary word wall. So here's how:
As religion completes the means for existance, the cause, and metaphysical things that put a purpose into life as well as fulfill unanswered aspects of science, scinece gives the product of existance, the effect, and physical things. It structures past, observes the natural world, and paints a picture basically. Religion is the brush and science is the paint to put it in a more understandable way for younger people who may be reading this.
Now then, I have posted my views on this the best I could in one post with no counter argument given, so please argue my points, and put your own views on this.
Human is only two letters away from hymen.
I tottaly agree with what you said at the end.NO one at my church is(or WAS since it took place a few years ago..) willing to accept that its possible science and religion comes hand in hand but there a re a few thing that always bothered me...
1)dinosaurs are real,but in the bible,they dont state these guys....(yes this sounds stupid but i hope you know what im getting at.)
religion and science is strangers to each.but you know what they say,"strangers is just friends you haven't met yet"
At 9/28/11 09:07 PM, majormelthesackboy wrote: I tottaly agree with what you said at the end.NO one at my church is(or WAS since it took place a few years ago..) willing to accept that its possible science and religion comes hand in hand but there a re a few thing that always bothered me...
You don't go to a church like that anymore right? I would leave if I was the only one who believed in the validity of both.
1)dinosaurs are real,but in the bible,they dont state these guys....(yes this sounds stupid but i hope you know what im getting at.)
They don't mention them. They also don't mention squids. I'm pretty sure squids do and have exist(ed)
religion and science is strangers to each.but you know what they say,"strangers is just friends you haven't met yet"
They aren't necessarily strangers. However, any scientific study that ends in any result other than strictly naturalistic is seen as untrue, therefore leaving the possibility of a creator out results in limiting scientific research.
Human is only two letters away from hymen.
At 9/28/11 09:20 PM, TheSixthCell wrote:
You don't go to a church like that anymore right? I would leave if I was the only one who believed in the validity of both.:
yes,I usually go there in the summer time.I guess its because if they feel like they question their religion they might sin?
They don't mention them. They also don't mention squids. I'm pretty sure squids do and have exist(ed)
Yea I feel the bible's characters are metaphors,but then again,if my family heard me say this,they might resent me....
They aren't necessarily strangers. However, any scientific study that ends in any result other than strictly naturalistic is seen as untrue, therefore leaving the possibility of a creator out results in limiting scientific research.
I'm a bit confused,but I got the gist of what you mean.BUT I have seen one wonder god has done(and its quite a weird one indeed) .but yes,its obvious why they leave out a creator.If I COMPLETELY MISSED THE POINT,then please explain what yiou said in laymans terms.
At 9/28/11 10:15 PM, majormelthesackboy wrote:At 9/28/11 09:20 PM, TheSixthCell wrote:You don't go to a church like that anymore right? I would leave if I was the only one who believed in the validity of both.:yes,I usually go there in the summer time.I guess its because if they feel like they question their religion they might sin?
It's not questioning it, and even in the bible it's considered good to question it.
They don't mention them. They also don't mention squids. I'm pretty sure squids do and have exist(ed)Yea I feel the bible's characters are metaphors,but then again,if my family heard me say this,they might resent me....
I think that is the case in some parts, but not in most
They aren't necessarily strangers. However, any scientific study that ends in any result other than strictly naturalistic is seen as untrue, therefore leaving the possibility of a creator out results in limiting scientific research.I'm a bit confused,but I got the gist of what you mean.BUT I have seen one wonder god has done(and its quite a weird one indeed) .but yes,its obvious why they leave out a creator.If I COMPLETELY MISSED THE POINT,then please explain what yiou said in laymans terms.
Ok, in laymans terms that means that in science, if they instantly rule out anything other than purely naturalistic answers from the start, it actually restricts scientific research.
Human is only two letters away from hymen.
ahhh ok i get it now.....
but i dont really know if i have a good opinion for that.
Science and religion are mostly orthogonal.
Science is an empirical study of how things work and are structured.
Religion is more like a statement of how things are.. or should be. It's taken as an article of faith based on a book or a priest or a parent or a friend.
Obviously there are some points where the two clash. Then it's simply a matter of whether you like empirical evidence.. or normative behavior. Neither one can claim to be philosophical truth. And most people who make the choice of preferring normative behavior are unaware they made that choice at all.
Most who prefer science are ill equipped to deal with the religious folk. Because they don't understand them.
I think religious folk understand scientists better than vice versa though. Mainly because deep down they know their belief system is utterly faith based and rooted in nothing. Also, the science folk are much better at expressing themselves.
Watching the church bend and deform to the "whims of accepted scientific theory" has been quite amusing though. I think intelligent design is the church's way of saying: "ok we are trying to accept some of your stuff and modify our 'interpretations' of the bible to accommodate. so now it's your turn to accommodate" To which science replies: "Nope. Not a chance. It was never about compromise. It was about figuring out how the world works. How it really works. Not pretending in order to appease an admittedly enormous body of people who believe in fairy tales about flying spaghetti monsters"
= + ^ e * i pi 1 0
Science is the study and theorization of natural phenomena. Religion is a belief in the supernatural. So really, I don't see any point where the two should ever interact, as science gives zero regard to the supernatural. The conflicts come into play when religious people attempt to use 'science' in order to support supernatural beliefs such as creation myths (such as the creation 'science' museum), and conversely when they attempt to use supernatural explanations for natural phenomena (i.e disease is caused by god being angry, god caused X to happen, etc etc.).
By very definition, the two should have really nothing to do with each other.
At 9/28/11 05:51 PM, TheSixthCell wrote: 1) The Cambrian Explosion
For any who don't know, the Cambrian Explosion is a time in history that fossils who came from that time period which are vastly more advance than fossils found from time periods before it.
No it isn't, that's an incredibly vague and only half correct definition. It's a period of biological history that had an extreme growth in the diversification of organisms. The sheer number of species exploded after a few billion years of relatively scarce development of life on Earth.
If you bring a creator into the picture who used evolutionary processes yet simply put in more advanced species into the picture, then it gets explained.
No it doesn't. You basically just said "God did it". That has never explained anything in the history ever. That does not explain the mechanisms involved in the event, what caused it to actually occur. If a god did it, then HOW did they do it? Without actually answering that, saying a deity was involved is just useless filler.
At 9/28/11 05:51 PM, TheSixthCell wrote: Mortal enemies, friends, or strangers?
Incompatible, so I guess strangers?
You see, everybody sees the relationship between science and religion as either mortal enemies, as in conflicting, friends, as in working together and supporting each other, or strangers, as in completely parallel (AKA the belief held by many that religion should keep to morality and science should keep to facts).
I believe they are strangers but in the sense science deal with facts and religion deals with an anciant mythos that's it.
From what i've seen, the majority either see them as conflicting or parallel, when in fact they do not contradict each other, for the most part. Being a former Christian, a former Atheist, a former Agnostic-Atheist (I know, very small difference between that and Atheist but I may as well put it), as well as a current evolutionist/theist (i'm still looking for a name to classify it under), i've been at the religious and the non-religious side of the spectrum, so don't think i'm some pulpet pounding preacher screaming "praise the lord" while rejecting all science, my religious beliefs are based on the co-operation of science and religion.
Most Atheists are agnostic atheists and pure agnostics don't exist as it deals with knowledge and not with theism.
The reasons I believe this are simple, I see no contradicting factors in the Christian Bible or even theism in general (some sub-theist classifications there are some) and science.
Really? What about the fact the earth is flat and we are in the center of the universe? Just to name THAT.
In fact, I believe that theism and science complete each other in general. Allow me to put some examples of this below, any argument against them is desired.
I believe most deists or theists will just try to shove their god in a hole that hasnt been fully explained by science yet because the idea of a god somehow makes them feel better.
1) The Cambrian Explosion
For any who don't know, the Cambrian Explosion is a time in history that fossils who came from that time period which are vastly more advance than fossils found from time periods before it. This has been unexplainable, with some of the explanations being "Too soft bodied", where fossils of supposedly soft bodied creatures were found before this. If you bring a creator into the picture who used evolutionary processes yet simply put in more advanced species into the picture, then it gets explained.
Uuuh, no not at all, creatures before the cambrian explosion were just shitty fossil material. Creatures called the tubelarians have no fossil record, should we assume they sprung into existence yesterday? See, you are just using the god of the gaps arguments, shoving god into something unexplained, exept here it's not even unexplained, just something you either ignore or dont believe to be true.
2) The Big Bang
This has been a very debated topic, and is one of the widely accepted theories of how the universe was created. I believe that it happened, however was caused by a creator.
What makes you believe that?
People have pelted me with questions, all of which reflected the same basic skeptism: "If spontanious creation is impossible by the very laws of nature, then where could a creator have come from?" And I did in fact concede that question to them in the past, for I had no answer. But after thinking about it quite a bit, and reading into the bible more, which i'll confess I didn't read much before this point, I found the answer. As an infinite past is impossible (I'll explain that later) there needed to be a cause for the effect of the big bang. A creator that transcends time and space would not have an infinite past, for finite and infinite are terms referring to time and other mathmatical figures if used literally, both of which only exist within our time/space dimension, therefore a creator transcending both is not infinite for he has always existed outside of time and space confinements.
How do you know that? See, what you are doing here again is taking an issue we dont know about and then just shoving god in there for seemingly no reason.
How science completes religion:
You may have noticed that I have only given reasons why religion completes science, and I realized that as I was typing it. I'll try to confine this to a considerably shorter text so as to avoid an unnecassary word wall. So here's how:
As religion completes the means for existance, the cause, and metaphysical things that put a purpose into life as well as fulfill unanswered aspects of science,
What aspects? Also what makes you think life has a predefined purpose?
scinece gives the product of existance, the effect, and physical things. It structures past, observes the natural world, and paints a picture basically. Religion is the brush and science is the paint to put it in a more understandable way for younger people who may be reading this.
I would have to disagree with this analogy, science is based on a method that greatly helps to discover facts and evidence about how the world works, religion is just an old textbook talking about magic. It's based on nothing and is only believed because alot of people will endoctrinate their children into believing in it or because it seems like an appealing idea to them.
Now then, I have posted my views on this the best I could in one post with no counter argument given, so please argue my points, and put your own views on this.
I did, have fun trying to answer my questions, I'm interested in the answers.
Isn't there a thread exactly like this?
Anyway, I choose both science and religion.
At 9/29/11 01:45 PM, Hybridization wrote: Isn't there a thread exactly like this?
Anyway, I choose both science and religion.
Not sure if there is
Human is only two letters away from hymen.
At 9/29/11 02:45 PM, TheSixthCell wrote: Not sure if there is
Alright, I'm not sure either. Maybe it was closed.
At 9/29/11 03:19 PM, Hybridization wrote:At 9/29/11 02:45 PM, TheSixthCell wrote: Not sure if there isAlright, I'm not sure either. Maybe it was closed.
Why do you care, it's not like he needs your permission to post it.
At 9/29/11 02:45 PM, TheSixthCell wrote: Not sure if there is
Are you going to respond to either VenomKing or myself? Because there's some pretty major holes in your reasoning, and I'd like to see your responses to them.
At 9/29/11 08:58 AM, Famas wrote: Science is the study and theorization of natural phenomena. Religion is a belief in the supernatural. So really, I don't see any point where the two should ever interact, as science gives zero regard to the supernatural. The conflicts come into play when religious people attempt to use 'science' in order to support supernatural beliefs such as creation myths (such as the creation 'science' museum), and conversely when they attempt to use supernatural explanations for natural phenomena (i.e disease is caused by god being angry, god caused X to happen, etc etc.).
By very definition, the two should have really nothing to do with each other.
Ruling out anything other than naturalistic explanation in a scientific study as a result limits the study of science. They are both two very different ways of explaining the universe, one uses metaphysical explanation and one uses observation. I see no reason why when looking into a subject scientifically one can't have a metaphysical explanation as a result, or a naturalistic explanation. Both should be equally open.
At 9/28/11 05:51 PM, TheSixthCell wrote: 1) The Cambrian ExplosionNo it isn't, that's an incredibly vague and only half correct definition. It's a period of biological history that had an extreme growth in the diversification of organisms. The sheer number of species exploded after a few billion years of relatively scarce development of life on Earth.
For any who don't know, the Cambrian Explosion is a time in history that fossils who came from that time period which are vastly more advance than fossils found from time periods before it.
I realize, I was very tired and distracted when posting this, I apologize. I should have used different points besides the Cambrian Explosion.
If you bring a creator into the picture who used evolutionary processes yet simply put in more advanced species into the picture, then it gets explained.No it doesn't. You basically just said "God did it". That has never explained anything in the history ever. That does not explain the mechanisms involved in the event, what caused it to actually occur. If a god did it, then HOW did they do it? Without actually answering that, saying a deity was involved is just useless filler.
I worded that very poorly. If you use a creator who used evolution as a tool to expand species in a more explainable way as to not overly confuse humans or for whatever reason the diety would have then it explains the origins and the intense intricacy of how Evolution happened. Look at how complex a cell is, and even how complex a neutron is. There are also more and more miniscule bits incorperated into matter, and into lifeforms itself that look almost designed with how perfectly they are fit for life. Scientists have tried recreating the atmosphere millions of times, and have tried various things that could have caused life, not a single one came close to working. With how intricate a cell is alone and with millions of miniscule complex and intricate things within that all working for life itself, how could that have happened by chance with absolutely no design?
Human is only two letters away from hymen.
'hard' sciences and religion don't really gel while 'soft' sciences and religion can overlap a lot. i don't consider science and spirituality as being enemies, they just deal with different things.
hard science is about the world regardless of our personal relation to it. religion/spirituality is directly concerned with the human experience and what our relationship is to each other and the rest of the universe.
At 9/29/11 03:46 PM, SteveGuzzi wrote: 'hard' sciences and religion don't really gel while 'soft' sciences and religion can overlap a lot. i don't consider science and spirituality as being enemies, they just deal with different things.
hard science is about the world regardless of our personal relation to it. religion/spirituality is directly concerned with the human experience and what our relationship is to each other and the rest of the universe.
I didn't deal with that there. There are certainly areas where religion shouldn't be in, and areas where science shouldn't be in, there's no denying that. Such as it would be irrational to say a rock was made out of God material or some other metaphysical explanation, and equally irrational to try to use science to define morals. Like it or not religion deals with morals though personal non-religious beliefs do as well while science does not, and I don't see any religion that deals with what a rock is made of.
Human is only two letters away from hymen.
At 9/29/11 03:25 PM, Famas wrote:At 9/29/11 03:19 PM, Hybridization wrote:Why do you care, it's not like he needs your permission to post it.At 9/29/11 02:45 PM, TheSixthCell wrote: Not sure if there isAlright, I'm not sure either. Maybe it was closed.
I love you too.
At 9/29/11 03:44 PM, TheSixthCell wrote: I worded that very poorly. If you use a creator who used evolution as a tool to expand species in a more explainable way as to not overly confuse humans or for whatever reason the diety would have then it explains the origins and the intense intricacy of how Evolution happened. Look at how complex a cell is, and even how complex a neutron is. There are also more and more miniscule bits incorperated into matter, and into lifeforms itself that look almost designed with how perfectly they are fit for life. Scientists have tried recreating the atmosphere millions of times, and have tried various things that could have caused life, not a single one came close to working. With how intricate a cell is alone and with millions of miniscule complex and intricate things within that all working for life itself, how could that have happened by chance with absolutely no design?
This entire paragraph is essentially the god of the gaps reasoning I mentioned above. Simply put, current holes in scientific understanding about processes that surround us do not validate your beliefs even remotely. Think of all the instances in the past where people did this: people used to believe celestial objects were giant spheres that god himself moved across the skies like a person turning a crank in order to....give a pretty light show to humans I guess (I honestly don't know why they thought a Deity would be bored enough to do this). They insisted that this must be correct because nobody at the time could compile enough evidence to formulate a proper working theory to explain what they were seeing. When heliocentrism and the concept of planetary orbits was later developed and confirmed, this completely shattered their 'proof', as the entire basis for their argument was gone.
People do this everyday, and I can understand why. However it's still a logical fallacy, something to be avoided when you are in pursuit of the truth.
Ahh, nuts. I didn't end up copying the other half of my response from notepad. Forgive the double post.
At 9/29/11 03:51 PM, TheSixthCell wrote: and equally irrational to try to use science to define morals.
Except science can be used to describe and explain morals and their development during the growth of civilization.
At 9/29/11 03:51 PM, TheSixthCell wrote: and I don't see any religion that deals with what a rock is made of.
That's assuming you don't have a fundamentalist interpretation of religious text, because there are plenty of people out there who do indeed believe concepts similar to this. Adam and Eve being the Judeo-Christian example, in that it is explained that God created Adam from dirt and Eve from the rib of Adam.
At 9/29/11 03:44 PM, TheSixthCell wrote: Ruling out anything other than naturalistic explanation in a scientific study as a result limits the study of science. They are both two very different ways of explaining the universe, one uses metaphysical explanation and one uses observation. I see no reason why when looking into a subject scientifically one can't have a metaphysical explanation as a result, or a naturalistic explanation. Both should be equally open.
Well, no, it's the definition that is applied to the word 'science'. There are the natural sciences, social sciences etc etc. Obviously when one is attempting to discuss something that falls into the realm of natural sciences, nothing is relevant other than the definition of 'study of naturally occurring phenomena'. If you want to discuss semantic meaning and philosophical implications of the observations made regarding nature, then you have crossed over into the social sciences.
The only 'merging point' of the two that I see is that the study of the proliferation of religious beliefs and their reasons for existing are something that would fall under social science studies. Other than that though, they only really interact when people insist on using the god of the gaps approach to explaining things.
At 9/29/11 04:12 PM, Famas wrote:At 9/29/11 03:44 PM, TheSixthCell wrote: I worded that very poorly. If you use a creator who used evolution as a tool to expand species in a more explainable way as to not overly confuse humans or for whatever reason the diety would have then it explains the origins and the intense intricacy of how Evolution happened. Look at how complex a cell is, and even how complex a neutron is. There are also more and more miniscule bits incorperated into matter, and into lifeforms itself that look almost designed with how perfectly they are fit for life. Scientists have tried recreating the atmosphere millions of times, and have tried various things that could have caused life, not a single one came close to working. With how intricate a cell is alone and with millions of miniscule complex and intricate things within that all working for life itself, how could that have happened by chance with absolutely no design?This entire paragraph is essentially the god of the gaps reasoning I mentioned above. Simply put, current holes in scientific understanding about processes that surround us do not validate your beliefs even remotely. Think of all the instances in the past where people did this: people used to believe celestial objects were giant spheres that god himself moved across the skies like a person turning a crank in order to....give a pretty light show to humans I guess (I honestly don't know why they thought a Deity would be bored enough to do this). They insisted that this must be correct because nobody at the time could compile enough evidence to formulate a proper working theory to explain what they were seeing. When heliocentrism and the concept of planetary orbits was later developed and confirmed, this completely shattered their 'proof', as the entire basis for their argument was gone.
People do this everyday, and I can understand why. However it's still a logical fallacy, something to be avoided when you are in pursuit of the truth.
I simply use a deity to explain it because there is absolutely no proof he does not exist, and the world looks designed in itself. I realize it may be seen as a logical fallacy, but with no proof of another cause and the very laws of nature preventing spontanious creation within the natural realm, logic leads me to believe that the cause is a creator. Going to a metaphysical conclusion for a primary reason of no proof otherwise isn't a logical fallacy, but simply the only available logical answer I can think of.
Human is only two letters away from hymen.
At 9/29/11 04:12 PM, Famas wrote:At 9/29/11 03:44 PM, TheSixthCell wrote: I worded that very poorly. If you use a creator who used evolution as a tool to expand species in a more explainable way as to not overly confuse humans or for whatever reason the diety would have then it explains the origins and the intense intricacy of how Evolution happened. Look at how complex a cell is, and even how complex a neutron is. There are also more and more miniscule bits incorperated into matter, and into lifeforms itself that look almost designed with how perfectly they are fit for life. Scientists have tried recreating the atmosphere millions of times, and have tried various things that could have caused life, not a single one came close to working. With how intricate a cell is alone and with millions of miniscule complex and intricate things within that all working for life itself, how could that have happened by chance with absolutely no design?This entire paragraph is essentially the god of the gaps reasoning I mentioned above. Simply put, current holes in scientific understanding about processes that surround us do not validate your beliefs even remotely. Think of all the instances in the past where people did this: people used to believe celestial objects were giant spheres that god himself moved across the skies like a person turning a crank in order to....give a pretty light show to humans I guess (I honestly don't know why they thought a Deity would be bored enough to do this). They insisted that this must be correct because nobody at the time could compile enough evidence to formulate a proper working theory to explain what they were seeing. When heliocentrism and the concept of planetary orbits was later developed and confirmed, this completely shattered their 'proof', as the entire basis for their argument was gone.
People do this everyday, and I can understand why. However it's still a logical fallacy, something to be avoided when you are in pursuit of the truth.
I apologize for posting in reply to the same text, but I felt the need to point this out, saying "There is nothing to provide another reasonable explanation, but one will eventually be found" Is just as faulty as saying "God made it because I said so and you have no proof otherwise". It's pure faith to believe that scientific evidence of another explanation will come up in the future until one does.
Human is only two letters away from hymen.
At 9/29/11 03:44 PM, TheSixthCell wrote: I worded that very poorly.
Or to put it another way, your position is very poor.
If you use a creator who used evolution as a tool to expand species in a more explainable way as to not overly confuse humans or for whatever reason the diety would have then it explains the origins and the intense intricacy of how Evolution happened.
First problem, you never actually answered the question to 'how' this did/could occur. How are you going to test or observe this godly magic to which somehow caused an entirely natural process? As a matter of fact, something supernatural tampering with evolution would make the whole field debunked. Want to know why? Because science by it's own nature is naturalistic. It does not in anyway shape or form deal with the supernatural. Hence the reason why there are no cited research papers on goblins, monsters, fairies etc.
Second problem, no matter what you twist it or how you phrase it, it's still a god of the gaps arguments and you're still being fallacious. If an unexplained phenomena is unexplained...what does that make it? I'll give you a hint, it starts with U. You're just slapping "god dun it" on everything and trying to invent excuses to why legitimate hypotheses don't work.
Look at how complex a cell is, and even how complex a neutron is.
By what standard are you measuring these to be complex? You can compare genomes with other creatures to to see which has the higher or most diverse base pair sequence, and I'm not entirely sure we've discovered another universe to compare.
It may be shocking to you, but that's because you haven't done much homework.
There are also more and more miniscule bits incorperated into matter, and into lifeforms itself that look almost designed with how perfectly they are fit for life. Scientists have tried recreating the atmosphere millions of times, and have tried various things that could have caused life, not a single one came close to working.
Never heard of Abiogenesis then? Oh come on, it's not like you haven't heard of this before.
With how intricate a cell is alone and with millions of miniscule complex and intricate things within that all working for life itself, how could that have happened by chance with absolutely no design?
Because that's what science indicates and you saying 'complex' over and over again and trying to illustrate the enormity of something we've been researching for centuries doesn't mean someone done it.
But let's entertain your idea for a minute. Let's say we were designed. Who said it had to be a god? Or a better one yet, your god? We could've been the result of an intergalactic fart from a hyper race of aliens and evolution still wouldn't need supernatural intervention.
It's not the lack of crimes that values your morality but your capacity for contrition.
Click this and one day I'll be worth bazillions.
When religion makes claims it can't prove, there's a problem.
Science is used to examine falsifiable statements or claims, it has no business in the world of the metaphysical and hypothetical just as religion has no business in claiming this and that left and right with nothing to back it up. You can't use a ruler to measure wind speed, and you can't feel the wind and say it's "God," respectively.
They're not mortal enemies, friends, or strangers. The reason for this is that the further you go down the line, religion, science and even philosophy all become indistinguishable.
Science assists us in constructing, to the best of our understanding, a model of the universe and it's laws. This is it's strength, and an extremely powerful tool.
Religion, when it's not overbearing and infested with dogma, provides community, a sense of order, and a wonder of existence.
Neither are enemies, friends, or strangers. They simply serve different purposes.
At 9/29/11 04:18 PM, TheSixthCell wrote:
I simply use a deity to explain it because there is absolutely no proof he does not exist, and the world looks designed in itself. I realize it may be seen as a logical fallacy, but with no proof of another cause and the very laws of nature preventing spontanious creation within the natural realm, logic leads me to believe that the cause is a creator. Going to a metaphysical conclusion for a primary reason of no proof otherwise isn't a logical fallacy, but simply the only available logical answer I can think of.
So I take it you're a proponent of intelligent design then (AKA creationism 2.0)?
I digress. In regards to there being no proof that a deity doesn't exist, I fail to see how that saves your reasoning from being illogical. Skepticism, which is not believing the existence until there is empirical evidence supporting it, is functionally logical because you are not making a leap in logical steps (this is known as faith. Picking a solution and hoping it works), You are not operating under assumptions, you are operating under the pretense of confirmation by evidence.
God of the gaps is a logical fallacy, because with nothing to preclude your assumption that "god did it", you have decided that said assumption is correct. There is no followable chain of logic: you jumped to a conclusion. In your case you attempted to mend this bridge by saying that things "look purposefully designed", but unfortunately subjective perception of nature isn't evidence. What you said is just another way of saying "I observe that nature is complex and pretty".
And where are you getting that evolution works by 'spontaneous creation'? Those are your words, not biologist's. Although abiogenesis is an emergent field that is just starting to stretch its legs, there is plenty of testable, viable explanations about the origin of life on Earth, and they aren't about spontaneity. There was an energy source, amino acids (which are incredibly easy to assemble) were readily available as building blocks for the structures of crude genetic precursors such as the first self replicating chemical compounds, and several billion years for said energy to excite said compounds which is the laboratory equivalent of an infinite amount of monkeys wailing on an infinite amount of typewriters and shitting out the complete works of Shakespeare.
On that note, it seems like you have quite a shaky understanding about the history of biological history and scientific process.
At 9/29/11 04:24 PM, TheSixthCell wrote: I apologize for posting in reply to the same text, but I felt the need to point this out, saying "There is nothing to provide another reasonable explanation, but one will eventually be found" Is just as faulty as saying "God made it because I said so and you have no proof otherwise". It's pure faith to believe that scientific evidence of another explanation will come up in the future until one does.
It would be, if that was what I said. However, it isn't. My point was not "Science will provide every answer for you given enough time", because I can't possibly know the limitations of human science capabilities. What I did say is that you attempting to draw conclusions from a lack of testable and consistent evidence is illogical, and will come back to bite you if when the sole foundation of your argument which is "you can't tell me why X happens" is no longer viable if and when I collect enough data to show you why X happens.
This is starting to become an awful lot like the Atheism/Theism topic though, I feel as if we're straying from the original points you started on about areas where science and religion could possibly be compatible.
This is starting to become an awful lot like the Atheism/Theism topic though, I feel as if we're straying from the original points you started on about areas where science and religion could possibly be compatible.
You are right, lets stay on topic in how they could be compatible in cases. I prefer not to stray into topics I wasn't originally adressing, which is why I attempt to not put anything regarding religion due to the fact that even if it's not an "Atheism vs Theism" thread it becomes one eventually. I much enjoyed that discussion, Good job. I look forward to any future debates we may have. Good luck in any debates you may get into.
Human is only two letters away from hymen.
At 9/29/11 04:45 PM, The-universe wrote:At 9/29/11 03:44 PM, TheSixthCell wrote: I worded that very poorly.Or to put it another way, your position is very poor.
Hm, you could at least show respect when attempting to get into a debate.
Never heard of Abiogenesis then? Oh come on, it's not like you haven't heard of this before.
That pretty much makes the reference to the miller experiment null and void.
With how intricate a cell is alone and with millions of miniscule complex and intricate things within that all working for life itself, how could that have happened by chance with absolutely no design?But let's entertain your idea for a minute. Let's say we were designed. Who said it had to be a god? Or a better one yet, your god? We could've been the result of an intergalactic fart from a hyper race of aliens and evolution still wouldn't need supernatural intervention.
http://whiteman0o0.wordpress.com/2008/01 /11/millerurey-experiment-fact-or-fraud/
I never said it had to be my God, I simply stated any diety, and the need for one wasn't even based on Evolution if you would read my post. Now then, this is getting far off topic.
Human is only two letters away from hymen.
At 9/29/11 05:10 PM, TheSixthCell wrote: I never said it had to be my God, I simply stated any diety
So then... Mercury it is.
At 9/29/11 05:10 PM, TheSixthCell wrote: Hm, you could at least show respect when attempting to get into a debate.
If you feel offended or deterred by my posts, pet the cat.
That pretty much makes the reference to the miller experiment null and void.
How so? You said "Scientists have tried recreating the atmosphere millions of times, and have tried various things that could have caused life, not a single one came close to working."
My link was an early illustration of how it IS working.
http://whiteman0o0.wordpress.com/2008/01 /11/millerurey-experiment-fact-or-fraud/
Got as far as the first paragraph, and that's all I needed to do. Find the error and you win a cookie.
Want another reason why I didn't go further than the first paragraph? Because what you've just done is a link/link response. Or to put it another way, instead of addressing the information provided in the link you were given, you've just given another link that addresses nothing, also a blog is an awesome citation. And I bet you expect me to examine the information provided in your link and address it. Or perhaps I could just slam about 30 links in one response and we can have a good ol' fashioned link war. Worth it?
I thought I was being cheeky by citing a science teacher/novelist/electrician or basically someone who isn't a successful biologist, but your citing a school kid who's major interests include...football and music. Nice one (and yes I know I'm flirting around a fallacy but there must be a limit somewhere!).
I never said it had to be my God, I simply stated any diety,
And I said this in response:
" We could've been the result of an intergalactic fart from a hyper race of aliens and evolution still wouldn't need supernatural intervention."
Unless you want to argue semantics over the definition of deity, then you're narrowing it down to the thousands of gods that have existed in human history. Assuming that at least one of them is correct.
and the need for one wasn't even based on Evolution if you would read my post. Now then, this is getting far off topic.
I was responding to this:
"If you use a creator who used evolution as a tool to expand species"
Once again, we could have been the result of an intergalactic fart from aliens and evolution in every sense of the word would not require supernatural intervention at any state in any point in history.
And you've omitted quite a chunk of my post. So I'll repost them just for you and clarify them.
How did this god do these actions, what testable observations are there to show it? (and saying complex a lot isn't one of them).
Why are you still using the god of the gaps argument?
What standard are you using to illustrate the complexity of neurons and cells and why is it not possible for this to occur naturally? Oh by the way, you're flirting dangerously close to the irreducibly complex argument, Mr. Craig.
How to explain the fact that science is intrinsically naturalistic and any supernatural intervention would actually debunk evolution?
It's not the lack of crimes that values your morality but your capacity for contrition.
Click this and one day I'll be worth bazillions.
I find it interesting that in debating science and religion it seems to be necessary to compare science to the Christian bible as if it contains the only account of creation ever written. Every religion, present and past, has an account of creation. It's man's explanation of how we got here and other such mysteries. So the ancient Romans, Greeks, Egyptians, etc. had their stories, their first man and woman, flood, etc. We now call this mythology yet the bible is considered not only valid but true by many people. And there is so much evidence against much of what the bible says in terms of people and events although a good portion of it does jibe with historical fact or what appears to be fact. And why is the bible the be-all and end-all spiritual explanation for how we got here. Hinduism for one is older than Judaism and Christianity, so are Native American religions, Aboriginal, etc.
So if the bible can be set aside and just look at God, we might have something to think about. Is it too simplistic to say evolution is a series of mutations occurring over millions of years resulting in millions of species of plants and animals? Is that not how we got from a single-celled organism to the human being?
Were ancient sea creatures suddenly born with fins that just happened to allow them to steer themselves and swim faster? Was it just chance that mammal had hair of fur to keep them warm or two eyes to see three dimensionally? No thought behind this at all, everything by chance? That's less believable than the bible.
Isn't it possible there's a universal intelligence behind this and hence behind evolution? I don't mean an old white man with a beard sitting on a cloud somewhere. Every living cell of every living species has the intelligence to duplicate itself, grow, take nourishment, excrete waste. Where did this intelligence come from?
Maybe this universal intelligence was not and is not all knowing and made some mistakes in its creations like the dinosaurs.
Bottom line is that I believe but of course cannot prove that what we call God created life through evolution and all the stories about God are just that, stories.
At 9/29/11 11:46 PM, Bacchanalian wrote: So then... Mercury it is.
I dunno man, I think Thor or Ares were kind of bad asses myself. They could take Mercury I think.
I'd actually add something more then snark...but everybody has already said the stuff I'd have said...so snark is all that's left.
You don't have to pass an IQ test to be in the senate. --Mark Pryor, Senator
The Endless Crew: Comics and general wackiness. Join us or die.
PM me about forum abuse.
Select between 5 monster racers, upgrade your monster skill and win the competition!
4.18 / 5.00 3,534 Views
Build most powerful forces, unleash hordes of monster and control your soldiers!
3.80 / 5.00 4,200 Views
© Copyright 1995-2014 Newgrounds, Inc. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy | Terms of Use
newgrounds.com — Your #1 online entertainment & artist community! All your base are belong to us.
