Creationists Go Round And Round

[Schumikonen 2]

If science (or else) were to prove the existence of god, faith would become irrelevant. Religion is based on believing the unknowable.

A friend told me once that he had collected all characteristics of god that he could find on the bible (omnipresence, omnipotence, etc) and went to search for an actual "thing" that had all these properties. He came up with Nature. It is our creator, it is everywhere, etc, etc. When he put this to christians, he met violence. To his surprise, the complains were not to his thinking but to the idea that god could be something tangible and knowable.

You continue to make the same mistake. That something is wrong does not prove that something else is right.

For example, every so often a plane crashes due to pilot error... should we conclude that pilots need to be replaced by priests?

Religion and science are two different things and when any one of the two infringes in the domain of the other... you get nonsense. You need to stop thinking that creationism _needs_ to make scientific sense and have a little more faith.... assaulting science in order to substain your faith is only going to get you into trouble.

That's why God made sure taht he can not be prove or his whole plan would be in danger, why he want people to have faith? I just don't know I have a very good theory (like scientists) about it would be pointless her given that most of the people here do not believe in God.

I have no problem with God being the Nature as long as we acept that this "Nature" has its own inteligence, as I said before I think there as an evolution lead by God or "Nature" I also think there was an inteligence leading that evolution.

If we all acept that evolution nor creatinism are not a certanty then this disscution is pointless, we all have to agree that we don't have the last word and if we don't how can we be sure that the other side is the wrong one?

[Schumikonen 2]

Nature is not omniscient, nor is it omnipotent.

Science and religion are compatible. I have no need or desire to attack science. Science is a wonderful world of exploration and discovery, and nothing that has been discovered so far has shaken my faith.

The way I see it, there are only two choices.. either we happened to be here by accident, or an intelligence created us. Is there any other alternative that I am not aware of? Since evolution is too mathematically improbable to have occurred, even in the supposed billions of years that the universe has been here, that leaves the other option, which is intelligent design. We know so much more about biology now than Darwin did in the 1700s. They didn't even have the ability to see the inner workings and structures of the cell back then. Now that we have electron microscopes and we can see how complex life is, we can begin to realize that this stuff didn't happen by accident. Even Darwin admitted that the structure of the eye was something that he couldn't explain, and that unless someone could come up with an explanation for how all the necessary parts could just happen to evolve at the same time, to make a working eye (remember, it has to be a survival advantage in order to promote natural selection or survival of the fittest), then he stated that his theory had serious flaws. Try googling "irreducible complexity". And also look up "microevolution vs. macroevolution". I think that some folks just want to accept any explanation as long as it's not God, so the Evolution theory with all its problems and lack of crucial evidence, has become the religion of choice for these folks. Unfortunately it is taught right from elementary school and up through university as fact, and most folks never think to question the validity of this. I don't understand why some people have this strong aversion to the idea of God. By their reaction, it seems like a stronger reaction than is warranted. Why should an atheist care if a Christian believes in God?

Back to the topic of probability of life occurring on it's own.. Let's say you were taking a stroll through the dessert, and suddenly you came upon a computer running a program, out in the middle of a sand dune. Would you think it randomly assembled itself over billions of years from the minerals in the sand? The program is obviously information that exists in a certain order for a certain purpose and instructs the computer how to function. (like DNA?). Where did the energy come from to run the computer. Who turned it on? How did the parts assemble themselves into circuit boards, with special circuits for different functions? Everywhere else in science, when we see "information" we assume intelligence. For example, SETI (Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence) scans radio emissions from outer space and analyzes them for any pattern that could indicate intelligence, and if they ever find something that meets this criteria, they will have no doubt that ET is sending a message. And yet right under our noses we have the DNA molecule which is a hugely complex program that instructs incredibly complex living organisms how to develop and function, and we think that this information (millions of genes) came together by accident? That's like Microsoft Windows happening by accident.

I think there is more scientific evidence that supports creation and God, than there is to support evolution. I wish that everyone would spend a bit of time investigating this honestly and with an open mind. It's too bad that most people spend more time pricing out the best insurance policy than they spend investigating their eternity.

I am new to Christianity, and what got me asking questions initially was the mathematical improbability of things coming together by chance, therefore, I with an open mind, I looked for other explanations for my existence.

IF you want to humor me read the following site.

www.allaboutthejourney.org

Excellent post.

[Schumikonen 2]

And who created that intelligence? With that hypothesis you've answered nothing and created an entity that we cannot perceive in any way.

I am surprise by this question coming form a science believer.

I thought that scientists believe that matter have been there without a begginig and that it would be there forever, the question you must answer first is who created that matter that was used by evolution to create us? maybe the Big Bang did it, maybe that is the way you call God why do you think that everything have to be created? is that what science teach? or maybe you have feeling inside because God put it in you as you part of his creation you also have to think that there is nothing eternal, well is matter is eternal, if you can believe that matter was there before the big bang (even if was in the form of energy) then you have an idea of something being eternal and you have the notion that not everything have to be created.

How come that you knowing that you don't have all answers to all science question are demaning to know everything from christians? have christians said that they know everything? certanly we don't but we do know what is important to us even if is irrelevant to you, our knowlegde can take us to salvation or in the worse case to the same place you are going, but that is not something you can say.

[Schumikonen 2]

Just as an example of how variable is knowledge is science, Since I was born science said there was 9 planet in our solar system now we have 8 with Pluto demoted from Planet to Dwarf Planet, who knows what is next maybe they will find a big enough planet to change the definition again and the Earth will become a satelite or something like this, for many year that was a fact and whoevr said something different was wrong, I wonder if during that time somebody answered 8 to that question instead of 9 and he got it wrong, what we see here is that nothing have change in the Solar System what changed was jsut science definition of something like have been doing for years so science can not discard anything not even with the so call fact, laws, theories, whatevers....

[YHR 0]

And who created that intelligence? With that hypothesis you've answered nothing and created an entity that we cannot perceive in any way.

Exactly.

[YHR 0]

deleted

[YHR 0]

After all the bugs, crashes, fixes, patches, freezes and all-around-f-up's, you've come to the conclusion Windows wasn't an accident?

I knew that would draw some fire.

[Jean Todt 4]

Wasn't it written in Latin?

I really don't know! But I must admit its easier to read!

[Max Mosley 2]

Nature is not omniscient, nor is it omnipotent.

Science and religion are compatible. I have no need or desire to attack science. Science is a wonderful world of exploration and discovery, and nothing that has been discovered so far has shaken my faith.

Yup. I don't have anything against religion either. It's the literal interpretation of the Bible that I think is silly. There is no good reason to read it that way.

The way I see it, there are only two choices.. either we happened to be here by accident, or an intelligence created us. Is there any other alternative that I am not aware of?

Yes. We could be the result of several different intelligences. Or we could be here with a purpose (ie for a reason) that was not the result of any intelligence. The latter possibility might be beyond our full understanding atm, but then so is the nature of God and how or why He might have created us. Finally, notice that this argument doesn't even mention what kind of God created us - He might be nothing like the Christian God.

evolution is too mathematically improbable to have occurred, even in the supposed billions of years that the universe has been here

This has certainly not been proved. There are some calculations that claim this, but they all have fatal flaws and come from people with religious agendas. In particular they assume that all possible chemical reactions are equally likely, which is certainly not the case. This is just very bad science.

We know so much more about biology now than Darwin did in the 1700s. They didn't even have the ability to see the inner workings and structures of the cell back then. Now that we have electron microscopes and we can see how complex life is, we can begin to realize that this stuff didn't happen by accident. Even Darwin admitted that the structure of the eye was something that he couldn't explain, and that unless someone could come up with an explanation for how all the necessary parts could just happen to evolve at the same time, to make a working eye (remember, it has to be a survival advantage in order to promote natural selection or survival of the fittest), then he stated that his theory had serious flaws. Try googling "irreducible complexity". And also look up "microevolution vs. macroevolution".

Irreducible complexity is largely discredited. For example, even the person who coined the phrase admits that some things that he called irreducibly complex 10 years ago, have now been explained by science! There are now many scientific proposals about how the eye might have evolved. Darwin couldn't explain it but it is no longer seen as a big problem. Although there are still questions that haven't been answered, it is no longer irreducibly complex.

I think that some folks just want to accept any explanation as long as it's not God, so the Evolution theory with all its problems and lack of crucial evidence, has become the religion of choice for these folks. Unfortunately it is taught right from elementary school and up through university as fact, and most folks never think to question the validity of this. I don't understand why some people have this strong aversion to the idea of God. By their reaction, it seems like a stronger reaction than is warranted. Why should an atheist care if a Christian believes in God?

That's not true. There is a huge number of scientists who are religious. Maybe 40% of scientists believe in God Very, very few of those scientists accept any of your "scientific" evidence. They have no reason not to: after all, they are expert scientists who should be able to understand what you're saying, and they already believe in God!

Back to the topic of probability of life occurring on it's own.. Let's say you were taking a stroll through the dessert, and suddenly you came upon a computer running a program, out in the middle of a sand dune. Would you think it randomly assembled itself over billions of years from the minerals in the sand? The program is obviously information that exists in a certain order for a certain purpose and instructs the computer how to function. (like DNA?). Where did the energy come from to run the computer. Who turned it on? How did the parts assemble themselves into circuit boards, with special circuits for different functions? Everywhere else in science, when we see "information" we assume intelligence. For example, SETI (Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence) scans radio emissions from outer space and analyzes them for any pattern that could indicate intelligence, and if they ever find something that meets this criteria, they will have no doubt that ET is sending a message. And yet right under our noses we have the DNA molecule which is a hugely complex program that instructs incredibly complex living organisms how to develop and function, and we think that this information (millions of genes) came together by accident? That's like Microsoft Windows happening by accident.

What you are arguing is a version of the "argument from design". It's an old argument, and it is not accepted by very many philosophers at all. Imagine you were strolling through northern Canada, and you came across a snow-flake. Wouldn't you think it was amazingly beautiful and wonderful? How can something so complicated and intricate, not be designed?

I think there is more scientific evidence that supports creation and God, than there is to support evolution.

But scientists disagree with you. Even the millions of scientists who believe in God still think you are totally wrong. You understand the scientific evidence better than they do?

PS I looked at your site - of course, they guy who made it (it's all about evolution) has no science training.

Indeed. Obviously only easily mis-lead people, 'sheep', if you will, can be Christians

Well, of course! (No, but most of them have been mislead, imho. Just look at all the idiotic preachers you get in America.)

And Schumikonen: how much do you trust the Bible if it has so many flaws? Why not just make your own mind up on moral matters? Also, I think your understanding of science is incomplete too.

[Schumikonen 2]

And Schumikonen: how much do you trust the Bible if it has so many flaws? Why not just make your own mind up on moral matters? Also, I think your understanding of science is incomplete too.

Not even science has a complete understanding of the things they said that is why is so changeable.

Like I said before there are many different kind of books in the bible a flaw in a poetic book is not important to me, but i have apply some bible principles to my life and I have seen them working so I trust that in the bible, like I said before many of thoses mistake have been fully explained to me and know I understand it and know that there were a mistake because I didn't have the right info about it, probably I still need more info to understand the rest of them even when I consider them mistakes because I don't understand them that doesn't mean that I am right about that, I was completely sure there was no God but there is a God, sure as I am writing this, I don't have any benefit by wirting this and believe me I would like thing to be different but they are not adn I have to accept there is a God even when i don't understand it just like you accept evolution even when you don't understand it nor can explain it, maybe the fosils gave you what you need to believe in evolution, God gave me what I need to believe in him and that is a personal issue, most scientist will never find God because that is not what they are looking for, many of them waste their time trying to find a reason not to believe, trying to find the final evidence of the non-existence of God and that is the wrong way, try to find him and you will.

How can I make my mind on moral matters when I had and have my own personal relationship with God? when he has revealed to me? when I have seen him working and I have seen his power and presence? I told you I wolud like to change many things I don't like in the bible and in christianity for things I like and go with me but now I know there is God and I must serve him because he made me ( even if that was through evolution or not) he is the boss and I decided to do my best to be on his will, not because I am affraid or anything like that is just a feeling that remained in me after I had my first experience with him.

[maure 1]

Nature is not omniscient, nor is it omnipotent.

Science and religion are compatible. I have no need or desire to attack science. Science is a wonderful world of exploration and discovery, and nothing that has been discovered so far has shaken my faith.

The way I see it, there are only two choices.. either we happened to be here by accident, or an intelligence created us. Is there any other alternative that I am not aware of? Since evolution is too mathematically improbable to have occurred, even in the supposed billions of years that the universe has been here, that leaves the other option, which is intelligent design. We know so much more about biology now than Darwin did in the 1700s. They didn't even have the ability to see the inner workings and structures of the cell back then. Now that we have electron microscopes and we can see how complex life is, we can begin to realize that this stuff didn't happen by accident. Even Darwin admitted that the structure of the eye was something that he couldn't explain, and that unless someone could come up with an explanation for how all the necessary parts could just happen to evolve at the same time, to make a working eye (remember, it has to be a survival advantage in order to promote natural selection or survival of the fittest), then he stated that his theory had serious flaws. Try googling "irreducible complexity". And also look up "microevolution vs. macroevolution". I think that some folks just want to accept any explanation as long as it's not God, so the Evolution theory with all its problems and lack of crucial evidence, has become the religion of choice for these folks. Unfortunately it is taught right from elementary school and up through university as fact, and most folks never think to question the validity of this. I don't understand why some people have this strong aversion to the idea of God. By their reaction, it seems like a stronger reaction than is warranted. Why should an atheist care if a Christian believes in God?

Back to the topic of probability of life occurring on it's own.. Let's say you were taking a stroll through the dessert, and suddenly you came upon a computer running a program, out in the middle of a sand dune. Would you think it randomly assembled itself over billions of years from the minerals in the sand? The program is obviously information that exists in a certain order for a certain purpose and instructs the computer how to function. (like DNA?). Where did the energy come from to run the computer. Who turned it on? How did the parts assemble themselves into circuit boards, with special circuits for different functions? Everywhere else in science, when we see "information" we assume intelligence. For example, SETI (Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence) scans radio emissions from outer space and analyzes them for any pattern that could indicate intelligence, and if they ever find something that meets this criteria, they will have no doubt that ET is sending a message. And yet right under our noses we have the DNA molecule which is a hugely complex program that instructs incredibly complex living organisms how to develop and function, and we think that this information (millions of genes) came together by accident? That's like Microsoft Windows happening by accident.

I think there is more scientific evidence that supports creation and God, than there is to support evolution. I wish that everyone would spend a bit of time investigating this honestly and with an open mind. It's too bad that most people spend more time pricing out the best insurance policy than they spend investigating their eternity.

I am new to Christianity, and what got me asking questions initially was the mathematical improbability of things coming together by chance, therefore, I with an open mind, I looked for other explanations for my existence.

IF you want to humor me read the following site.

www.allaboutthejourney.org

My friend's contention was that nature can be understood as having every single characteristic of god (as presented in the bible). Your reaction only proves his findings regarding the inability to accept god as something tangable and knowable.

Besides which and regarding the two adjectives that you chose to deny nature's godliness, there is no way of showing that nature is not omniscient (it is impossible to comprehend what omniscience is or looks like) and, in regards to little us, nature is certainly omnipotent...

In any case, the claims made by creationist might turn out to be true, why not,... but that will never turn them into science. Science is a different endeavour with different methodologies, different responsibilities, and different objectives. Looking for god because of "missing pieces" or errors in science is like turning to alcohol (or breaking into dance or baking bread) because you cannot figure out your math homework.

Science and religion are not comparable just like tomato sauce is not comparable with rocket fuel. Religion and science are completely and utterly different domains of knowledge. If you keep poking at science to come to grips with religion, you are in for a world of pain.

Let religion be religion and science be science. It is friendly advice.

[maure 1]

That's why God made sure taht he can not be prove or his whole plan would be in danger, why he want people to have faith? I just don't know I have a very good theory (like scientists) about it would be pointless her given that most of the people here do not believe in God.

I have no problem with God being the Nature as long as we acept that this "Nature" has its own inteligence, as I said before I think there as an evolution lead by God or "Nature" I also think there was an inteligence leading that evolution.

If we all acept that evolution nor creatinism are not a certanty then this disscution is pointless, we all have to agree that we don't have the last word and if we don't how can we be sure that the other side is the wrong one?

How does one assess the intelligence of god? how does one assess the intelligence of nature? Does it have to be an intelligence that you can comprehend? Do you claim to be able to comprehend the intelligence of god?

In any case, nature has managed an impossibly complex network of life for billions of years...

[YHR 0]

Yup. I don't have anything against religion either. It's the literal interpretation of the Bible that I think is silly. There is no good reason to read it that way.

Yes. We could be the result of several different intelligences. Or we could be here with a purpose (ie for a reason) that was not the result of any intelligence. The latter possibility might be beyond our full understanding atm, but then so is the nature of God and how or why He might have created us. Finally, notice that this argument doesn't even mention what kind of God created us - He might be nothing like the Christian God.

This has certainly not been proved. There are some calculations that claim this, but they all have fatal flaws and come from people with religious agendas. In particular they assume that all possible chemical reactions are equally likely, which is certainly not the case. This is just very bad science.

Irreducible complexity is largely discredited. For example, even the person who coined the phrase admits that some things that he called irreducibly complex 10 years ago, have now been explained by science! There are now many scientific proposals about how the eye might have evolved. Darwin couldn't explain it but it is no longer seen as a big problem. Although there are still questions that haven't been answered, it is no longer irreducibly complex.

That's not true. There is a huge number of scientists who are religious. Maybe 40% of scientists believe in God Very, very few of those scientists accept any of your "scientific" evidence. They have no reason not to: after all, they are expert scientists who should be able to understand what you're saying, and they already believe in God!

What you are arguing is a version of the "argument from design". It's an old argument, and it is not accepted by very many philosophers at all. Imagine you were strolling through northern Canada, and you came across a snow-flake. Wouldn't you think it was amazingly beautiful and wonderful? How can something so complicated and intricate, not be designed?

But scientists disagree with you. Even the millions of scientists who believe in God still think you are totally wrong. You understand the scientific evidence better than they do?

PS I looked at your site - of course, they guy who made it (it's all about evolution) has no science training.

Well, of course! (No, but most of them have been mislead, imho. Just look at all the idiotic preachers you get in America.)

And Schumikonen: how much do you trust the Bible if it has so many flaws? Why not just make your own mind up on moral matters? Also, I think your understanding of science is incomplete too.

So, did a bunch of folks get together and just write the bible for something to do on a rainy afternoon, over and over again, hundreds of years apart? I think there is very good reason to take it literally, except for the parts that are obviously not meant to be, like Revelation, which is written in a figurative manner, but still accurate if we can understand the meaning of the hard parts. Are you aware that there are hundreds of prophecies in the Bible that have been fulfilled? The actual day that Jesus rode into Jerusalem on a donkey was predicted in the book of Daniel (chapter 9:25-26) and using the Jewish calendar, it works out right to the exact day? Also Psalm 22 was written about 600 years before crucifixion was even invented, and it describes the future death of Jesus.

I would very much like to know where I can find the references to the flawed calculations. I believe that the odds that were used in these types of scenarios were extremely generous in favour of the "accidental" method. If you are aware of some good sites or references that would be in layman's terms, please let me know. There may be proposals about how an eye might have developed, but no proof, and it's highly unlikely, since we don't find any fossils with partial eyes.

I know that many scientists are Christians; I wasn't directing my comments towards scientists in particular, but just people in general. I have a list somewhere of scientists who are Christians, and who do support the creationist ideas that I mentioned in my earlier posts. This is very encouraging to me, because the conflicts that I perceived between science and creation were a stumbling block for me. In light of these other opinions, I now feel that there are viable alternatives to the "accepted" things that we are all taught in school. I would like to know where you found the stats about all the "Christian" scientists who don't support the science that I was talking about. I certainly don't know more than they do, but I do know that when there is a difference of opinion, it is possible for a group of people to be mistaken.

The website is not written by a scientist, but this guy and authors of other books I have read, have researched what scientists have written, and interviewed scientists to arrive at the conclusions that they have, and to enable them to summarize what they learned during this process. I guess we could all go out and do the research ourselves. It would be a daunting task, but doable.

I'm not trying to "prove" that there is a God. I'm just trying to share some stuff that I find compelling... to maybe put a question mark in some person's head somewhere, to make them start asking questions. Hey, if there was an awesome sale on sportscars down the street, I'd be telling all my friends about that too. I'd want them to be able to take advantage of the great opportunity. Why would I keep something this good to myself? If anyone chooses to take advantage of this or not, that is their own business. I'm not here to "push" my beliefs on anyone, but on the other hand, I don't want to see people miss out because they didn't know, or had been misled.

In my opinion, there is too much scientific theory taught as "fact", and this is dangerous when people use this to discern their own beliefs or opinions. What if they are wrong? In short, there is a whole bunch of stuff we know nothing about, and I don't pretend to, so there are enough unknowns to make just about anything possible. The arrogance of some of the scientific community serves to humiliate those who might have a different view, so that many won't even challenge them, for fear of being ridiculed. People need to be responsible for ensuring that they are diseminating accurate information, and that they don't present theories as facts, or build whole systems on possibly flawed assumptions, and then teach it as fact. Much like you are afraid of Christianity teaching falsehoods to people, I have an equal fear that theoretical science is being presented as fact. If there is no God, what do we have to lose? However, if their IS a God, a great injustice will have been done, because people's eternity is at stake.

[Quiet One 15]

So, did a bunch of folks get together and just write the bible for something to do on a rainy afternoon, over and over again, hundreds of years apart? I think there is very good reason to take it literally, except for the parts that are obviously not meant to be, like Revelation, which is written in a figurative manner, but still accurate if we can understand the meaning of the hard parts. Are you aware that there are hundreds of prophecies in the Bible that have been fulfilled? The actual day that Jesus rode into Jerusalem on a donkey was predicted in the book of Daniel (chapter 9:25-26) and using the Jewish calendar, it works out right to the exact day? Also Psalm 22 was written about 600 years before crucifixion was even invented, and it describes the future death of Jesus.

Ok, I was trying to avoid the thread, and perhaps make a post about scientific method and its differences with religion and why it is stupid for science to try to disprove the undisprovable (god) and why it is stupid for religion to be used to explain natural phenomena (like evolution). Anyways, I might make a blog entry about it. I already wrote a part, might finish it, before the second coming hopefully

Now about your comments: the Bible, from a purely "historical" (non religious) point of view is actually a compilation of many, many scriptures from many different sources. Some of them conceived as history (Kings, Chronicles, Facts of the Apostles, the first three Gospels) , some as didactical fables (Ruth), some as lithurgical instructions (Leviticus, Ecclesiasticus, some of the Letters), some as political propaganda (Judith, the Revelation, most Apocalipsys, including the Apochrypha), Proverbs, Songs (the Psalms) and even erotic poetry (Song of Songs). If the quantity of copies makes it worth of being taken literally, then the Olympic Gods should be taken seriously, too, for the Illiad was kept through oral and written folklore for even longer.

The "hundreds of prophecies fulfilled" is what made me write this post: Nostradamus was another guy who prophetized lots of stuff (according to a book I read once, he even predicted the outcome of the 1930 English Golf Open or something like that). Prophecies are easy to predict, once they happened. A prediction you would expect from a god would be clear. The prophecies you mention are rather obscure, and they can be interpreted in many ways. You don't believe me? Here's another explanation of the Book of Daniel:

For starters, the canonical books included in the Bible (OT) where decided much later than the facts described in them. The arbitrary limit was set for those books that were arguably written before 150 B.C. All other books were considered Apochrypha. Not by today's scholars, mind you, but by a group of scholars reunited around 100 B.C.

Of all the books, Daniel is perhaps the last one written, perhaps around 165 B.C. The scholars were aware of this, for they included it in the Scriptures, which included what they considered the most modern writings. Even if Daniel is considered one of the oldest prophets, the book seems to know very little about the times of Daniel and too much about the Seleucid Era which came many centuries later. it seems as if Daniel was really a wonderful prophet, describing in great detail the future, but a total idiot when it came to even the most basic things about his own time The first verse of the book he confuses Joachim with Joachin, his son, and the year of the falll of Jerusalem. He then talks about Senaar, which was never used in Daniel's times to refer to Babylon (I might have gotten the King's names wrong, for I am not sure about most names in English). It was also written in aramaic, a language that wasn't used in the older books, because hebrew was the common language back then, with parts in Persian and Greek...none of those languages were used in Daniel's times. Hebrew only lost its battle against aramaic in the centuries around the birth of Jesus.

You still with me? Ok, let's talk about those two famous verses. I found this English versions:

9.25

[Grabthaw the Hammerslayer 4]

and across the galaxy a slimy alien is boiling water at 100 degrees.

Oh Maure, there you go bringing Ron Dennis back into this again

[Grabthaw the Hammerslayer 4]

Andres, like you I have been resisting posting, but I will do so and keep it short:

There is one fundamental problem with religion and science - people. History has shown that elements of both the "divine word" and science are often selectively chosen, interpreted, presented and used by people to back up their own arguments/beliefs/politics or campaigns.

At their core, both science and religion *are* compatible; what is not compatible is the intepretations that people apply. Taking science or religion too literally can be dangerous - treating something as the absolute truth can and will lead to problems.

What's important imho is to keep an open mind and to question your beliefs.

[B.P. 0]

You guys have way too much time...........

[HandyNZL 1]

Andres, like you I have been resisting posting, but I will do so and keep it short:

There is one fundamental problem with religion and science - people. History has shown that elements of both the "divine word" and science are often selectively chosen, interpreted, presented and used by people to back up their own arguments/beliefs/politics or campaigns.

At their core, both science and religion *are* compatible; what is not compatible is the intepretations that people apply. Taking science or religion too literally can be dangerous - treating something as the absolute truth can and will lead to problems.

What's important imho is to keep an open mind and to question your beliefs.

Science has the answer...lets nuke the f out of each other and then we won't have to continue this endless debate...who's with me?!?!?

[Jez 0]

Andres, like you I have been resisting posting, but I will do so and keep it short:

There is one fundamental problem with religion and science - people. History has shown that elements of both the "divine word" and science are often selectively chosen, interpreted, presented and used by people to back up their own arguments/beliefs/politics or campaigns.

At their core, both science and religion *are* compatible; what is not compatible is the intepretations that people apply. Taking science or religion too literally can be dangerous - treating something as the absolute truth can and will lead to problems.

What's important imho is to keep an open mind and to question your beliefs.

Well said

[Schumikonen 2]

How does one assess the intelligence of god? how does one assess the intelligence of nature? Does it have to be an intelligence that you can comprehend? Do you claim to be able to comprehend the intelligence of god?

In any case, nature has managed an impossibly complex network of life for billions of years...

I don't claim to comprehend the intelligence of God, nobody can do that, I just know for sure there is a God, I don't have to explain it and I don't have to understand it, I just have to believe in him and put my trust in him and he will do the rest, why would I bother to try to explain God? He gave me the prove that I need to believe in him, you can call him Nature or whatever you want but I know is God the one who did it.

[Schumikonen 2]

Andres, like you I have been resisting posting, but I will do so and keep it short:

There is one fundamental problem with religion and science - people. History has shown that elements of both the "divine word" and science are often selectively chosen, interpreted, presented and used by people to back up their own arguments/beliefs/politics or campaigns.

At their core, both science and religion *are* compatible; what is not compatible is the intepretations that people apply. Taking science or religion too literally can be dangerous - treating something as the absolute truth can and will lead to problems.

What's important imho is to keep an open mind and to question your beliefs.

I agree with you on this.

[maure 1]

I don't claim to comprehend the intelligence of God, nobody can do that, I just know for sure there is a God, I don't have to explain it and I don't have to understand it, I just have to believe in him and put my trust in him and he will do the rest, why would I bother to try to explain God? He gave me the prove that I need to believe in him, you can call him Nature or whatever you want but I know is God the one who did it.

Well said... and good for you.

[maure 1]

Oh Maure, there you go bringing Ron Dennis back into this again

Naughty, naughty...

[Minchia! 0]

I have no more ability to understand the machinery that is the universe or the reasons for its existance than a single celled organism has the ability to comprehend a game of cricket, so I certainly do not claim that anyone who has a sense of spirituality or connection with a greater power/purpose is an idiot. That being said, the man-made, corrupted morass of congealed mucous that is organized religion is what gets me fired up.

Here are my problems with organized religion:

1. Arrogance.

Do you really think it is possible that an intelligence that supposedly created the ENTIRE universe and everything in it could possibly give a flip that little Tommy had sex before he was married or that he stole a cupcake from the grocery store??!! The vast infinite universe was created only for us and that "god" is deeply interested in the pathetic drama that is occurring on this little blue speck of dust?

2. Pettiness.

God created us so we could worship him? That sucks! We have to follow these very particular and specific rules and rituals or we burn for all eternity? Sounds like god is a kid with a complex to me. If your cancer goes into remission, you thank god for his grace - yet, if an asteroid vaporizes a childrens hospital, its gods will. It seems like he makes out like a hero no matter what.

3. Infallibility.

Because of the nature of faith, there is no way to prove god doesn't exist. If some major scientific breakthrough showed us that it is impossible for god to exist, or aliens landed on earth and told us that we were just some kids science project that went wrong, a person of faith would just say that god wanted it to appear that way. He can't lose! I could tell you that there are 6 cyborg, neo-nazi hookers floating around every person, all the time, but they are invisible and there is no way to detect them. If I can convince enough people to believe this, I have a religion.

4. (My favorite) Hypocracy

I used to know this girl who was a fanatic in a particular faith (to stay PC, I won't name it). She was not allowed by her parents to attend science class because they did not believe in molecules or some such nonsense. They completely shunned and denounced all forms of science, yet they dropped their daughter off to school in their big SUV and microwaved their lunch and used their cell phones. Do they think those things are powered by god? If they lived in a cave and hunted their own food, I would give them credit. On the other hand, scientists are the first to admit that they are wrong if new data emerges to prove otherwise. Thats the nature of science - to constantly re-examine and refine theories in search of the elusive and often unattainable truth.

So believe who/what you want! Just don't try to sell it to me.

[pumpdoc 2]

^^^^^^^^^^ Damn, post of the day