Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

Science has disproved many Christian theories, such as the evolution of man, contrary to the theory of Adam and Eve.

why do people still believe that mankind descended from Adam and Eve in the face of Sheer scientific fact?

how long will it be before Science completely disproves the theory of how god made earth and validates the big bang theory?

once that happends, would faithfuls continue to blindly ignore scientific facts and follow disproven religious texts?

just wait till you get left on earth with satan in the rapture

just wait till u get left behind in the rapture.

At 3/8/07 08:32 AM, godsman11 wrote: just wait till you get left on earth with satan in the rapture

just wait till u get left behind in the rapture.

;
LoL & when is this time of rapture ?
Let me guess ,a man has put this down in some religious writing somewhere.
So that now it's considered the word of god.
Go polish your crucifix!
What a bunch of B.S. Seeing how only Christians & ex-christians are going to be affected, after all the invisible ,omniputent all seeing Buddah will protect his faithful.
As will Allah.

SO when the invisible, all powerful , Christian god who's up in the sky watching everything we do. Keeping track of his master 'divine plan' that nobody can understand decides to strike.
We'll all get what's coming to us.
Please give us a call here at Newgrounds will you, I wouldn't want to miss the show.
But I believe I'm going to be alright, you see I believe in God.
I just don't believe all the ritualism BUllshit that mankind has come up with to worship him.
You see god didn't come up with any of that , just poor misguided souls like yourself.

At 3/7/07 06:04 PM, Zoraxe7 wrote: It makes more sence to say god made gravity and every other law of the universe than to say it exsisted forever or that its there 'just because it is', witch is the atheist idea on things, not very logical realy how can you think like that?

No, that is not the "athiest" or Scientific idea on things. The Scientific view is that a series of causal relationships occurred, possibly starting at the Big Bang event (but that is still not entirely known), and from that point the universe progressed in a mechanistic manner tending towards lower-energy states until Life developed, chemical reactions that drove themselves to higher-energy states by harvesting other reactions. The exact cause of all the attractive forces is still unknown (Grand Unified Theory), but we understand the predictable manner in which they seem to wok.

That is absolute logic. The truly illogical view is the "Universe created by Being who does not operate under any physical laws and who was never created, which means the Being has always existed and may be independent of time or anything we can possibly observe or interact with." Yeah... that's just another way of saying, "Oh, how does that work? BOGEYMAN!"

no, we dont know, all we know is that it happens and the patterns of it happening.

Which leaves you weak and ignorant. Knowledge leads to technology leads to progress leads to increasing quality of life. Ignorance leads to a pathtic death.

God cant make the sun rise, thats just silly, but an invisible force that has no origen and magicaly levitates big things to small things just because it does makes much more sence!

An invisible force that originates from matter and pulls things together to achieve a lower energy state when combined with centrifugal forces of motion causes a small thing to travel in a stable orbit around a big thing.

If you actually got it right in the first place, it might make more sense to you.

I thought trying to understand the world around you was called 'science'.

The initial purpose (and probably source) of Religion was to explain the natural things that humans did not understand. It has inevitably become a power structure for an elite to dominate over others in every single place where it has developed.

Science was developed to allow the Universe to explain itself. It has not spiraled into anything negative.

At 3/7/07 06:04 PM, Zoraxe7 wrote:

At 3/7/07 11:35 AM, I-have-2-arms wrote:

It makes more sence to say god made gravity and every other law of the universe than to say it exsisted forever or that its there 'just because it is', witch is the atheist idea on things, not very logical realy how can you think like that?

Oh really? It makes more sense for there to be an entitiy outside of the universe that has existed forever? That means that entity is not inside the universe, but inside "something else", whatever that may be, with completely unknown laws and that said entity then creates an entire universe with laws, just because it somehow can. And you consider that making more sense than just the universe existing forever?

God cant make the sun rise, thats just silly, but an invisible force that has no origen and magicaly levitates big things to small things just because it does makes much more sence!

Eh? What are you trying to say? Gravity does have an origin, and it's not magic... As for the "why" of it, let's first understand how it works before we start breaking our heads over why it works the way it does, without actually knowing the way it does...

At 3/7/07 10:12 AM, Grammer wrote: I am honestly saddened that many people believe science is "against" religion, or vice versa. The two are polar opposites, science is simply not good enough to test the supernatural, and the supernatural is not good enough to test science.

So stuff it.

I actually like your feelings here, unfortunately too many people today are using their religious beliefs to control what other people can do, and therefore people try to use science to disprove the religious beliefs in order to protect their freedoms.

That’s how I see it anyway.

The fact that religion attempted to explain natural phenomena doesn't necessarily mean that's its intended purpose. The main focus of religion is to create a framework as to how we are supposed to live our lives and interact with one another. The idea of religion also requires much philosophical thought as to the purpose of life, the relativity of morality, the idea of whether your personality is merely a function of the physical process of the mind or the presence of a soul, human exemption from the animal kingdom, and the finality of death. Speaking of death, that's one area where religion will always beat science, because there is no way to know for certain what happens when a person dies.

The purpose of science is to explain the processes of the natural world. There are no abstracts in science and there is no room for argument. All of the scientifically describable processes; every concrete relationship between every object in the universe has always been since the existence of matter. That knowledge, while being extremely useful in improving the quality of human life, doesn't give any clue as to the purpose of life or how it should be lived. Science, by virtue of what it is, will never have all of the answers.

The body of religious thought is constantly changing and growing. A single religion could have hundreds of different interpretations. Those interpretations will always be discussed, challenged, and revised. The idea of what god is, its reasons and motivations, its capabilities, and the supposed methods it uses to reach its worshipers has grown throughout time. To think that Religion can't grow or change is rather short-sighted. Our religious beliefs have changed over the years: they have either been altered to accommodate changes in technology or lifestyle, branched off to form separate religions due to internal schisms, and some religions have died because they failed to accommodate a changing populace.

As it has said in this topic before, there is no reason for science to be in conflict with religion since they're two different entities seeking to fulfill two different functions

Well, science can prove all these facts, however the church is actually known to create lies! In medieval times, the Catholic church came up with Heaven and Hell to make people have fear of hell and hope to get into heaven, and thus support the church, when its all wrong, because even the BIBLE doesnt even say anything about heaven or hell, it says when you die you go to Purgatory, and at the end of time you either live in happiness, or your wiped of existence entirely.

At 3/7/07 06:04 PM, Zoraxe7 wrote: No I eat pasta.

If you going to use sarcasm instead of trying to discredit my text why do you even bother?

My point is try to imagine yourself many thousands of years ago when explanation and intelligence is a rare thing. So wanting to know you're origins and what is going on can’t be explained away with science because there isn’t any.

So religion was created and it evolved.

Faithfuls will continue to blindly ignore scientific facts and follow disproven religious texts forever.

At 3/8/07 05:16 PM, I-have-2-arms wrote:

My point is try to imagine yourself many thousands of years ago when explanation and intelligence is a rare thing.

Why go back thousands of years? Look at things today. If you think about people today, you should come up with the same conclusion. Intelligence is a rare thing... :P

At 3/8/07 05:16 PM, I-have-2-arms wrote:
My point is try to imagine yourself many thousands of years ago when explanation and intelligence is a rare thing. So wanting to know you're origins and what is going on can’t be explained away with science because there isn’t any.

So religion was created and it evolved.

Man, Classical Studies doesn't always pay off....
But some days.....I see statements like these......and just smile to myself...... ;)

Demos kratos
Senatus Populisque Romanus
Ne quid nimis

and my all time favorite:

"It will be enough for me, however, if these words of mine are judged useful by those who want to understand clearly the events which happened in the past and which (human nature being what it is) will, at some time or other and in much the same ways, be repeated in the future. My work is not a piece of writing designed to meet the needs of an immediate public, but was done to last forever."

....some days it's good to be a historian...... :)

At 3/9/07 01:39 AM, Imperator wrote: ....some days it's good to be a historian...... :)

And other days you think, "what the fuck am I going to do with this major?"

Very similar to a music composition degree... on the rare occasion your work is performed, it's awesome... otherwise, it's like, "ok, it's great I can do that, but how will I pay the bills?"

At 3/9/07 12:31 AM, goodman7 wrote: Faithfuls will continue to blindly ignore scientific facts and follow disproven religious texts forever.

Nice alt.

Whats the whole issue, there is no such thing as this diety science calls "logic" the fact religion exists at all proves it. The answer is, both are wrong. The whole debate is a trick question.

At 3/9/07 01:14 PM, Noxvarg wrote: Whats the whole issue, there is no such thing as this diety science calls "logic" the fact religion exists at all proves it. The answer is, both are wrong. The whole debate is a trick question.

So if there was never a God (I agree with that) and there was no Big Bang etc. when science has proof, that you can see yourself! How did we happen? Accident - Seems science-side
Zapped into existence suddenly - Seems religion-y-side

At 3/9/07 02:33 PM, Potempkin wrote:

At 3/9/07 01:14 PM, Noxvarg wrote: Whats the whole issue, there is no such thing as this diety science calls "logic" the fact religion exists at all proves it. The answer is, both are wrong. The whole debate is a trick question.

So if there was never a God (I agree with that) and there was no Big Bang etc. when science has proof, that you can see yourself! How did we happen? Accident - Seems science-side
Zapped into existence suddenly - Seems religion-y-side

I'd answer these questions, but I can't even understand either of them......
I have NO CLUE what either of you are trying to say!

At 3/8/07 09:59 AM, Draconias wrote:

No, that is not the "athiest" or Scientific idea on things. The Scientific view is that a series of causal relationships occurred, possibly starting at the Big Bang event (but that is still not entirely known), and from that point the universe progressed in a mechanistic manner tending towards lower-energy states until Life developed, chemical reactions that drove themselves to higher-energy states by harvesting other reactions. The exact cause of all the attractive forces is still unknown (Grand Unified Theory), but we understand the predictable manner in which they seem to wok.

Atheism and science are different.

Where did the universe come from? the big bang.
What made up the big bang? every thing in the universe, matter and energy.
Where did the matter and energy come from? you would say it has always exsisted, that matter and energy cannot be created and destroyed, wich is a law of the universe, but...
Every action has an equil and opposite reaction, the reaction being the bigbang and the universe. That would make the universe impossible for matter and energy to have exsisted forever. Science therefor makes the atheistic theory a paradox. The universe by the atheistic thought via science says that everything has always exsisted but was never created or destroyed.

Which leaves you weak and ignorant. Knowledge leads to technology leads to progress leads to increasing quality of life. Ignorance leads to a pathtic death.

An invisible force that originates from matter and pulls things together to achieve a lower energy state when combined with centrifugal forces of motion causes a small thing to travel in a stable orbit around a big thing.

The power to move a planit is insignificant compaired to the power of the force.

If you actually got it right in the first place, it might make more sense to you.

gravity, a force that brings small things to large things, got it.

OH! im such an moron, i used to think that reality was created with laws and forces that allowed the universe to develope, now i know that gravity pulls things to the ground and not a law of the universe (witch we called gravity by the way) created by some kind of deity, but a force that is every where, but is invisible, and keeps the universe together.

Sooo... how many goats do i have to sacrifice so Gravity doesnt decide to pull small things to big things?

The initial purpose (and probably source) of Religion was to explain the natural things that humans did not understand. It has inevitably become a power structure for an elite to dominate over others in every single place where it has developed.

Because Stalin was a good leader and the US is a therocracy.

haha! religions just a big scam to get you to put money in the collection tray at church so the preist or whatever can afford his next meal.. ill tell you.. holy men dont eat nearly as much as they should.. :P

Devout religious people believe that whatever their deity holds is true.
If G-d is surely all-powerful, even He could warp the laws of science.
I, however, believe in science over religion, because i have cold, hard, proof.

At 3/9/07 05:49 PM, Ranger2 wrote: Devout religious people believe that whatever their deity holds is true.
If G-d is surely all-powerful, even He could warp the laws of science.
I, however, believe in science over religion, because i have cold, hard, proof.

No you dont, that is why this is a debate.

How many goats do you think i should sacrifice?

At 3/9/07 04:33 PM, biasedgod wrote: haha! religions just a big scam to get you to put money in the collection tray at church so the preist or whatever can afford his next meal.. ill tell you.. holy men dont eat nearly as much as they should.. :P

Nice alt.

At 3/9/07 05:49 PM, Ranger2 wrote: Devout religious people believe that whatever their deity holds is true.
If G-d is surely all-powerful, even He could warp the laws of science.
I, however, believe in science over religion, because i have cold, hard, proof.

Age 14.....yup.....Seek hekp NOW!

At 3/9/07 04:33 PM, biasedgod wrote: haha! religions just a big scam to get you to put money in the collection tray at church so the preist or whatever can afford his next meal.. ill tell you.. holy men dont eat nearly as much as they should.. :P

I'm guessing you just recently turned 17.......you might wanna check out the above link as well......

At 3/9/07 06:21 PM, Imperator wrote: Age 14.....yup.....Seek hekp NOW!

Wouldn't it make more sense if these people tried to prove that topic wrong?

So far we appear to have roughly zero examples of such an event occuring.

At 3/9/07 04:27 PM, Zoraxe7 wrote:
Atheism and science are different.

They are to a degree. Science it self is agnostic, it can't really say anything about god as god is suppose to exist out side the universe. However, science also states that given multiple theories on a given phenomenon, the simplest one (i.e. the one that makes the fewest assumptions and has the most basic components) is the correct one. You see a simler effect in quantum mechanics where a partial will tend to take the shortest path between two points. It's this nature which is expressive of the non existence of god.

Where did the universe come from? the big bang.
What made up the big bang? every thing in the universe, matter and energy.
Where did the matter and energy come from? you would say it has always exsisted, that matter and energy cannot be created and destroyed, wich is a law of the universe, but...
Every action has an equil and opposite reaction, the reaction being the bigbang and the universe. That would make the universe impossible for matter and energy to have exsisted forever. Science therefor makes the atheistic theory a paradox. The universe by the atheistic thought via science says that everything has always exsisted but was never created or destroyed.

You analogy is both flawed and incomplete. Every action dose have an opposite reaction, and that opposite reaction would be the matter and energy traveling in the opposite direction from us. Also nether atheism or science requires the universe existed for ever, hell string theory postulates how the universe came into existence, quite nicely. Lastly your argument is incomplete, you your self fail to explain how adding god solves this problem.

gravity, a force that brings small things to large things, got it.

OH! im such an moron, i used to think that reality was created with laws and forces that allowed the universe to develope, now i know that gravity pulls things to the ground and not a law of the universe (witch we called gravity by the way) created by some kind of deity, but a force that is every where, but is invisible, and keeps the universe together.

Your misconstruing what was said. The parent was trying to show the reason from objects orbiting other objects. Additionally, gravity isn't an “invisible” force. We can see gravity in the effects on the objects around us. Your belief that it was made by some deity is also unfounded; There simply is no empirical evidence for it, and therefor isn't supported by science.

Sooo... how many goats do i have to sacrifice so Gravity doesnt decide to pull small things to big things?

I gather that this is your attempt at sarcasm to the parent poster? When some one is backed into an intellectual corner it's not all uncommon for them to sprout insults and ad hominem attacks.

Because Stalin was a good leader and the US is a therocracy.

The united states isn't a theocracy yet, and it hopefully never will be; it is however far more religious then it was when it was founded. As for Stalin, you don't need a deity to have a religion, he did form a religion around him self and the state.

At 3/9/07 07:32 PM, EndGameOmega wrote:

At 3/9/07 04:27 PM, Zoraxe7 wrote:
Atheism and science are different.

They are to a degree. Science it self is agnostic, it can't really say anything about god as god is suppose to exist out side the universe. However, science also states that given multiple theories on a given phenomenon, the simplest one (i.e. the one that makes the fewest assumptions and has the most basic components) is the correct one. You see a simler effect in quantum mechanics where a partial will tend to take the shortest path between two points. It's this nature which is expressive of the non existence of god.

Like you know what your talking about, can you explain that in english so i can point out the flaws.

You analogy is both flawed and incomplete. Every action dose have an opposite reaction, and that opposite reaction would be the matter and energy traveling in the opposite direction from us. Also nether atheism or science requires the universe existed for ever, hell string theory postulates how the universe came into existence, quite nicely. Lastly your argument is incomplete, you your self fail to explain how adding god solves this problem.

no, it doesnt, if that thoery says that the universe was made by pre-exsisting matter, energy, and laws than it is simply not the reel begining, try to imagin a world without matter, energy, laws (such as gravity), or even empty space. In short, no reality, it can be assosiated with death for the ones that dont believe in relligion.

gravity, a force that brings small things to large things, got it.

OH! im such an moron, i used to think that reality was created with laws and forces that allowed the universe to develope, now i know that gravity pulls things to the ground and not a law of the universe (witch we called gravity by the way) created by some kind of deity, but a force that is every where, but is invisible, and keeps the universe together.

Your misconstruing what was said. The parent was trying to show the reason from objects orbiting other objects. Additionally, gravity isn't an “invisible” force. We can see gravity in the effects on the objects around us. Your belief that it was made by some deity is also unfounded; There simply is no empirical evidence for it, and therefor isn't supported by science.

I know that! but, a force with out cause is an illogical asumption on your part, matter doesnt just decide to float to big things because it feels like it.

Sooo... how many goats do i have to sacrifice so Gravity doesnt decide to pull small things to big things?

I gather that this is your attempt at sarcasm to the parent poster? When some one is backed into an intellectual corner it's not all uncommon for them to sprout insults and ad hominem attacks.

um... im a teenager, sarcasm is my common anser to anything..

And yeh i shalt sacrifice a virgin to gravity, who in grace shall smite thee, oh one that will float away into the heavens, unless saved by the almighty grace of the one, the benevolent and mercyful.

:lighten up ^.0

At 3/9/07 07:32 PM, EndGameOmega wrote: However, science also states that given multiple theories on a given phenomenon, the simplest one (i.e. the one that makes the fewest assumptions and has the most basic components) is the correct one.

That is actually Ockham's Razor and not scientic criteria.

At 3/9/07 09:29 PM, Grammer wrote: They're not workable in science, but religion isn't science, but that doesn't make it wrong. your ignorance continues to perplex me. It's almost as if you refuse to accept the possibility that god could exist.

Welcome to Strong Agnosticism. Come up with a "god" that isn't a logical oxymoron and you might have something.

Says who? You the Hell are you to define what is and isn't reasonable? Does that mean it wasn't reasonable to say the Earth was round before we could prove it?

Yes.

But then again, we could always prove it with simple observation. Only when the closed-minded religious zealots took over in the Dark Ages did people start to be told (and thus believe) that the earth was flat.

I mean, do you believe in Leprechauns, faeries, alien abductions, and pink unicorns?

There's an Elephant in the trunk of my car. Really, there is. You can't disprove it, so, according to your "logic" it is completely reasonable to assume that it IS there, and make decisions based on that as being an actual fact.

It is IMPOSSIBLE to prove something nonexistant. Period. but if we believed every postulated thing actually DID exist... well grown men would cry when Santa didn't appear, and we'd be baffled as to why we didn't get a quarter under our pillow when we got a tooth pulled.

Sometimes you seem like an intelligent guy... others I just don't get you.

You can't prove it, so therefore by your own logic it isn't reasonable to "fund such research", and it can't exist.

c wut i did thaer?

Proof and evidence are separate beasts.

You should know that. Do I need to talk to you like I do Dre-man? Because you're getting closer and closer to sounding like him.

And definitely aren't falsehoods, either. You're just saying it can never, because there's no proof, and it's unreasonable. That's not how science works.

You're right, that's not how science works... science goes from observation -> hypothesis -> testing -> theory... religion goes from hypothesis to nowhere. Find some EVIDENCE (not "proof") of pink unicorns, leprechauns, the elephant in my trunk and your god and maybe we can discuss it.

"We can't prove the Earth is round, so it's just good science to assume it isn't, and there's no point in "funding such research.""

Again, proof =/= evidence.

Same thing applies with God. Why should you assume he doesn't exist? Science can't prove it. Thanks for proving my own point.

My girlfriend's been on time before. She has also shown a great level of honesty and reliability. So my faith in her future timeliness has an actual basis. God has yet to show up for our dates... doesn't return my calls either. I'm starting to think she's seeing someone else ;_;

If that's the case then I can base God's existence on the miracles I've seen him do in the past, since both of our examples are circumstantial evidence.

You have personally witnessed actual miracles performed by the literal Christian god?

Do tell. Especially how you knew it was the Christian god that did it.

I bet people used that logic to assume the Earth was flat.

Not really.

Then you're not very good at science, and the more you speak, the more I think you're a moron, who has no fucking idea what the Hell he's talking about, but feels like trying to make a non-existent point, in some futile, feeble-minded attempt to convince me there's no reason for believing in God, despite no contradictory evidence of said God.

No contradictory evidence of unicorns, leprechauns, and the elephant in my trunk either. I dare you to give me a straight answer as to which of those you believe exist and why.

There's no proof against any of those things, so why couldn't I believe in pink unicorns?

Do you?

Then it's not science. Science searches for the truth, not just "what seems reasonable at the time". Science wouldn't blindly assume the Earth was flat, just like it wouldn't assume God can't exist. Your logic fails.

Actually it would. Hypothesis (based on assumption of what people consider to be "reasonable at the time"): earth is flat. Test: watch an eclipse, observe a boat at the horizon, observe the Coriolis effect, etc etc. Hypothesis disproven, new hypothesis: earth is round. Tests: same. Hypothesis valid, changed to Theory.

Perfectly good science, based on what was considered reasonable at the time, disproven through observational evidence... as is every scientific idea.

Sorry for the double post... meant to copy-paste this into the other reply, but hit post on accident.

At 3/9/07 08:33 PM, Zoraxe7 wrote: Like you know what your talking about, can you explain that in english so i can point out the flaws.

Take a college-level quantum mechanics course and you'll learn that he's right.

no, it doesnt, if that thoery says that the universe was made by pre-exsisting matter, energy, and laws than it is simply not the reel begining, try to imagin a world without matter, energy, laws (such as gravity), or even empty space. In short, no reality, it can be assosiated with death for the ones that dont believe in relligion.

For the love of bob, learn to spell before you try and debate high-level science.

I find no reason to separate science from religion, in fact, I can't imagine one without the other. I study medicine, and knowing how the human body works to sustain a correct physiology makes me feel quite foolish to believe no one designed it, that a perfect balance was not created but randomly formed... it's ridiculous.

I realise this post may not be red but let me ask you a few questions, what do you get out of destroyin the will to live? everyone i know fears death of just does'nt want to be different and so agrees, but saying god does'nt exsist is like saying jesus did'nt or does'nt exsist, theres more proof to him being alive than anyone else in the world now your gonna reply you belive in jesus, just that he was a conman, but shut up whats the point and plus do you know for a fact that we evolved? there are so many questions that can't be answer and should not be answerd there are so many things from the bible that your science can't prove.