Science Over Faith?

CrackerJax

CrackerJax

New Member
Religious folks have fallen into a sand trap of being continually discredited over and over again. This does not help your cause to try and use science to prove a myth.

Any science which indicates a flaw in the Bible is NOT GOOD SCIENCE. (evolution,age of the earth,etc.)

Any science which indicates a strength in the Bible is GOOD SCIENCE.

That's not the way it works in the real world of attaining truth. You can't run the equations backwards and remain a forward thinking person or group.

The more religion tries to use science to validate their myth...the more ridiculous they appear to the rest of us.


P.S. As for Gerald Schroeder, I can see why MIT kicked him to the curb after 7 years. No tenure there, just leave.
 
Anonymiss1969

Anonymiss1969

Active Member
zorkan said:
Look at a tree
Click to expand...
If by this post you mean that a tree is proof of god because of its complexities, you are a sad, lazy person. Because you don't know how it formed in the beginning, you instantly say that it was the work of god? Why not explore and find a legitimate reason instead of settling with a ridiculous one?
 
Anonymiss1969

Anonymiss1969

Active Member
Well, the tree fairy and the mammal fairy (fairies that are in charge of trees and mammals) got together and said, "Hey, why don't we make creatures that can help eachother. They can convert gases for eachother so they can survive and never have to worry about running out of the gas they require."

That's how it happened.

Doesn't that sound almost as ridiculous as a being who was bored and just decided to create a planet with a trees?

The point is I don't know why trees are here, but I'm not stupid enough to give up on looking for the answer and believe an illogical story.
 
Anonymiss1969

Anonymiss1969

Active Member
Green Cross said:
Can science create a tree? no

Science has created "the bomb" though

Science worship is funny
Click to expand...
Give it a few years, maybe decades. We're already able to manipulate genes (e.g. tomatoes that are spliced with arctic fish in order to cause the tomatoes to survive extreme cold) so I'm pretty sure its only a matter of time before "science creates a tree".

Edit: I would agree that it would be funny to worship science, but I don't think I've ever heard of anyone sacrificing animals or people for the sake of contemporary science, nor have I heard songs about how great science is from anyone that isn't trying to teach a child to enjoy it in a kindergarden class.
 
Green Cross

Green Cross

Well-Known Member
PadawanBater said:
That's not even worth replying to with a real answer, someone who would post that question doesn't want to know how trees got here.
Click to expand...
If you can't see the complexity of life on every level maybe you need to look closer.

Science has never created anything as simple or beautiful as a tree, and the science crowd thinks all this happened by accident?

that's like trying to prove the empire state building went up by accident.
 
P

PadawanBater

Guest
Green Cross said:
Can science create a tree? no

Science has created "the bomb" though

Science worship is funny
Click to expand...

Go look up 'biological engineering'. That's exactly what those scientists do, create new structures and manipulate existing forms of life.

We've created entirely new species of trees and plants, the modern banana for example is a direct result of scientific intervention. Go check how a wild banana looks and come back and tell me we can't change nature. Not to mention agriculture.. which not even modern science is a part of because it was established thousands of years ago as a useful farming technique...

The logic you're using is this "complexity requires a designer" - you (zorkan... fuck it, I guess I will respond to it after all...) believe a tree is complex right? That's why it must have been designed. Well... what about God? Isn't your God supposed to be the MOST complex thing existence, I mean he'd have to be right? If he's got all the powers you've attributed to him.. So why is it the tree, a relatively simple organism in biological terms would require a designer, but then God, clearly much more complex than any tree, wouldn't?

If you're going to use the argument, you have to use it to the end, you can't just get to God and then suddenly the logic changes and God is above the rule.. no, it doesn't work that way.
 
P

PadawanBater

Guest
Green Cross said:
If you can't see the complexity of life on every level maybe you need to look closer.

Science has never created anything as simple or beautiful as a tree, and the science crowd thinks all this happened by accident?

that's like trying to prove the empire state building went up by accident.
Click to expand...

GC, give me an example of something that is so clearly designed and why it could not possibly come from any other natural, normal means?

Make it two if you don't mind.
 
Anonymiss1969

Anonymiss1969

Active Member
Green Cross said:
If you can't see the complexity of life on every level maybe you need to look closer.

Science has never created anything as simple or beautiful as a tree, and the science crowd thinks all this happened by accident?

that's like trying to prove the empire state building went up by accident.
Click to expand...
So your saying that because we aren't scientifically advanced enough to create a tree, science is discredited? That's like saying that if I can't create something like the art work of the Sistine Chapel, then none of my work can be considered art.

An "accident" is a human made notion. It didn't happen "by accident". The way you perceive scientists theories is them being accidents.
 
Z

zorkan

Active Member
PadawanBater said:
The logic you're using is this "complexity requires a designer" - you (zorkan... fuck it, I guess I will respond to it after all...) believe a tree is complex right? That's why it must have been designed. Well... what about God? Isn't your God supposed to be the MOST complex thing existence, I mean he'd have to be right? If he's got all the powers you've attributed to him.. So why is it the tree, a relatively simple organism in biological terms would require a designer, but then God, clearly much more complex than any tree, wouldn't?

If you're going to use the argument, you have to use it to the end, you can't just get to God and then suddenly the logic changes and God is above the rule.. no, it doesn't work that way.
Click to expand...
He is called god for a reason.

you find it easier to believe in big bang than you do a god?
 
P

PadawanBater

Guest
zorkan said:
He is called god for a reason.

you find it easier to believe in big bang than you do a god?
Click to expand...

Well yeah, there's evidence to support the big bang theory, there's stuff I can actually look at and say "yeah, this data points in this direction, then that data points in the next direction" it's measurable, testable, observable... I don't have anything like that to support any religion.

How do you explain the redshift in galaxies without having had all the matter we currently occupy be in the same place at once?

Why do the galaxies farther away move faster?

Why does the estimated age of things seem to line up pretty well with the estimated age of the rest of the universe? We don't see planets that are older than the big bang, we don't see planets older than their parent stars because stars form first, then planets.. there is seriously so much evidence to support the big bang, I'm talking decades and decades of insanely smart people observing and measuring to get these results, results that have changed the course of humanity.
 
CrackerJax

CrackerJax

New Member
There is no proof of any trees authorship. It does not by default fall to a Bible G*D. that's third grade thinking. Maybe fourth grade.

Simple and as beautiful as a tree huh? How about a planet which is set up completely on violence mayhem and chaos. Look at the whole picture and see the "beauty" which is our cannibalistic planet.

Blood and guts everywhere...hardly a "tree" like atmosphere. Hardly a G*D worth worshiping either. If indeed a "personal" G*D made this planet..... IT hates us.
 
fish601

fish601

Active Member
I see what your saying zorkan, He has trouble believing in god because who made god..
but seems to think whatever made the gases that created the big bang isnt as hard to understand

about redshift if you really wanted to know why not use google.. do you think we can explain it any better than scientist?
 
fish601

fish601

Active Member
CrackerJax said:
There is no proof of any trees authorship. It does not by default fall to a Bible G*D. that's third grade thinking. Maybe fourth grade.

Simple and as beautiful as a tree huh? How about a planet which is set up completely on violence mayhem and chaos. Look at the whole picture and see the "beauty" which is our cannibalistic planet.

Blood and guts everywhere...hardly a "tree" like atmosphere. Hardly a G*D worth worshiping either. If indeed a "personal" G*D made this planet..... IT hates us.
Click to expand...

there was no need for a tree to creat itself
 
fish601

fish601

Active Member
Anonymiss1969 said:
So your saying that because we aren't scientifically advanced enough to create a tree, science is discredited? That's like saying that if I can't create something like the art work of the Sistine Chapel, then none of my work can be considered art.

An "accident" is a human made notion. It didn't happen "by accident". The way you perceive scientists theories is them being accidents.
Click to expand...
maybe he's trying to say that tree took a designer to make it just like you making art
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top