Science v. Religion Finally Explained Clearly
-
- Posts: 167
- Joined: Wed Jun 14, 2006 8:52 pm
- Location: Just ask the CIA
- Contact:
Science v. Religion Finally Explained Clearly
Gotta love Digg. . .
-
- Gramps, Jr.
- Posts: 4297
- Joined: Mon Dec 05, 2005 12:14 am
- Location: New Zealand
Good point. I think it should be changed to "Ignore lack of supporting evidence and reject all attempts at inquiry and proof."
And "get an idea" should be "Receive all knowledge from sacred writings passed down from unknown, perhaps mythical, dead people; reject all new ideas as heresy."
There. Done. The world is once again safe from progress.
And "get an idea" should be "Receive all knowledge from sacred writings passed down from unknown, perhaps mythical, dead people; reject all new ideas as heresy."
There. Done. The world is once again safe from progress.
But who would've written those "holy scriptures"? =P
You looped back to the start again, Usagi.
It should rather be...
Start -> Get a silly idea -> ignore reason and logic and claim no evidence is needed -> Get the idea moving around like a persistent STD -> back to point 3.
Science anyday, anytime.
You looped back to the start again, Usagi.
It should rather be...
Start -> Get a silly idea -> ignore reason and logic and claim no evidence is needed -> Get the idea moving around like a persistent STD -> back to point 3.
Science anyday, anytime.
No, that's Hey Presto! Intelligent Design! AKA Creationism in a lab coat! AKA Bullshit!
God's intervention in evolution isn't needed to make it work, and there's no evidence for it; that's why Creationists don't like it.
But that doesn't mean there isn't a God; why wouldn't God come up with an amazingly flexible, stunningly complex and beautifully effective system like evolution, instead of some gobbledegook cobbled together to validate a questionable sacred text?
Major mainstream religions all accept evolution. It's only Christian fundamental literalists who believe in biblical inerrancy who have a problem.
Science doesn't have anything to say about religion or God, nor does it need to; religion doesn't have anything to say about science, nor does it need to. They're separate, and should stay that way. Nothing needs to be reconciled.
God's intervention in evolution isn't needed to make it work, and there's no evidence for it; that's why Creationists don't like it.
But that doesn't mean there isn't a God; why wouldn't God come up with an amazingly flexible, stunningly complex and beautifully effective system like evolution, instead of some gobbledegook cobbled together to validate a questionable sacred text?
Major mainstream religions all accept evolution. It's only Christian fundamental literalists who believe in biblical inerrancy who have a problem.
Science doesn't have anything to say about religion or God, nor does it need to; religion doesn't have anything to say about science, nor does it need to. They're separate, and should stay that way. Nothing needs to be reconciled.
No, because you can't go back in time to have a silly idea before the seminal silly idea, and now that it's the received wisdom, nobody is allowed to have any more ideas of any kind.Nuky wrote:But who would've written those "holy scriptures"? =P
You looped back to the start again, Usagi.
It should rather be...
Start -> Get a silly idea -> ignore reason and logic and claim no evidence is needed -> Get the idea moving around like a persistent STD -> back to point 3.
Absodamntootly!Nuky wrote:Science anyday, anytime.
Those diagrams look suspiciously scientific to me.
I suspect heresy.
(Seriously, this topic is a little sensitive and perhaps we should avoid either avoid it or face it but not make fun of either party. See what happened recently with a Mac/PC debate, which is basically nothing important? Better be careful with actually important stuff.)
I suspect heresy.
(Seriously, this topic is a little sensitive and perhaps we should avoid either avoid it or face it but not make fun of either party. See what happened recently with a Mac/PC debate, which is basically nothing important? Better be careful with actually important stuff.)
Actually, invertin, your traits are inheritable, but always difers, which explains why the world isn't filled with deformed weakling creatures. Survival of the fittest.
To your "God created physics" stuff, I've got "Then how did God exist in the first place, if he created existance and all that?". To that you'd prolly say "then how did the universe get created at all?"... "I don't know, but it's better to believe in something that get new plausible theories often, than believing in something there has been no proof of for many thousand years - where nothing happens; which also constantly gets explained scientifically. etc. blah blah."
imho, science and religion doesn't go that well together.
To your "God created physics" stuff, I've got "Then how did God exist in the first place, if he created existance and all that?". To that you'd prolly say "then how did the universe get created at all?"... "I don't know, but it's better to believe in something that get new plausible theories often, than believing in something there has been no proof of for many thousand years - where nothing happens; which also constantly gets explained scientifically. etc. blah blah."
imho, science and religion doesn't go that well together.
Hmmm? Going back to point 3 = keep on ignoringUsagi wrote:No, because you can't go back in time to have a silly idea before the seminal silly idea, and now that it's the received wisdom, nobody is allowed to have any more ideas of any kind.Nuky wrote:But who would've written those "holy scriptures"? =P
You looped back to the start again, Usagi.
It should rather be...
Start -> Get a silly idea -> ignore reason and logic and claim no evidence is needed -> Get the idea moving around like a persistent STD -> back to point 3.
Edit: sorry for the doublepost.