Is Science Better Than Religion?

[outhouse]

Nature is God's manifestation

Unsubstantiated.


Which god?

What has he done?

Why cannot anything at all be attributed to any deity concept.

but for the Godless believers, nature is just nature...

You mean academia?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Unsubstantiated.

Which god?

What has he done?

Why cannot anything at all be attributed to any deity concept.

You mean academia?

Nature is the substantial....the reality represented by the concept of God can not be disproven by you...

.

 

[outhouse]

Nature is the substantial....

Did I say it was not? no, I did not.

the reality represented by the concept of God can not be disproven by you...

Either can ones imagination.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Did I say it was not? no, I did not.

Either can ones imagination.

So there you are....

 

[Bunyip]

Evolution has wide appeal because it offers pat answers to hard questions, besides being a handy excuse for atheism; but truth be told, it is an ill-founded and unlikely theory no matter how loudly academia proclaims it. Search high and low inside or outside the laboratory and it is guaranteed that you will never find the smallest bacterium "evolving" a more efficiently designed organelle (much less a brand new organelle). A process whereby inherited random genetic mutations in simple life forms become highly complex organisms by the sweep of a magic wand called Natural Selection is more science fiction than fact.

Unfortunately for you, that is simply false - we can and do see bacteria evolving. To deny natural selection is to declare your ignorance of biology.

Random mutations never produce positive changes: nor can they write code, design cellular structures, engineer highly integrated biological systems, or otherwise accomplish any of the enormously complex tasks involved in sustaining and propagating life. There is no force in nature capable of creating or designing anything.

Again, that is false - random mutations acted upon by selection can do all of those things.

What passes for "evolutionary forces" at work in the lab environment are increasingly found to be mechanisms associated with transgenerational epigenetic inheritance. A yeast strain gaining resistance to some toxin, for example, is not evolving anything new at all. Its DNA is responding to chemical switches already in place. What you really need to show us is a saccharomyces cerevisiae cell with a budding flagella. That's about as likely as finding a winged horse. Evolution and Natural Selection are not fact at all. The notion that the immense complexity of plant and animal life we see integrated throughout all the ecosystems of the earth are the product of random genetic mutations is almost comical: but it is the next best thing to believing in a Creator.

Evolution grants you freedom from conscience, and lets you enjoy the illusion of objective morality.

WOW! Clearly you have confused biology for some form of nihilism - how you managed that, i can't imagine.

I think it could happen. And according to my toughest critic (my girlfriend) I'm not an utter idiot. Borderline, maybe.

Remember, the scriptures do not say the earth stopped rotating. They say the sun and moon maintained their position in the sky relative to two geographic points: "Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon."

To cause that effect you would only need to distort the spacetime continuum in a localized area, planet Earth in this situation. A dramatic decrease in earth's gravitational field would have the effect of speeding up time on the earth's surface, relative to what was being observed in the heavens. I realize this would make everybody so light they would float away, but there may be a solution for that problem too: my only point being that things not conceivable to us (because science has yet to unlock most of the universe's secrets) are not necessarily impossible to a Creator. Not by hocus pocus, but by manipulation of forces affecting time and space, matter and energy.



Regressive influence? Not in this century. To begin with, Creationism or Intelligent Design as theories impose no moral constraints and no intellectual constraints. The opposite is true, in fact. The paradigm of Creationism gives hi-tech inventors and engineers a wealth of brilliantly designed 'inventions' which they can imitate, replicate, or emulate (one obvious example is flight). We think we are so smart, but in fact all we do is unravel the mystery of what God has already done. What human could ever conceive of things on his or her own that remotely approach the ingenuity of what is already in existence? (Take the fairer sex for example. Nobody, however much a genius, could ever think up an Alice Eve or a Monica Bellucci.)

 

[gnostic]

Remember, the scriptures do not say the earth stopped rotating. They say the sun and moon maintained their position in the sky relative to two geographic points: "Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon."

To cause that effect you would only need to distort the spacetime continuum in a localized area, planet Earth in this situation. A dramatic decrease in earth's gravitational field would have the effect of speeding up time on the earth's surface, relative to what was being observed in the heavens. I realize this would make everybody so light they would float away, but there may be a solution for that problem too: my only point being that things not conceivable to us (because science has yet to unlock most of the universe's secrets) are not necessarily impossible to a Creator. Not by hocus pocus, but by manipulation of forces affecting time and space, matter and energy.

Highly unlikely.

And the chances of this happening, at exactly the same time while the Israelites were in battle, for the forces being manipulated only affecting "time and space, matter and energy", still strike me as being hocus-pocus.

I am saying that we can all make up or give all sort of sort of interpretations and explanations, but the fact that couldn't happen normally, only showed the author, whom ever he (or she) may be, has overly wild imaginations.

The only way for the extended daylight that I see, if the location of the battle was relocated to the arctic circle, then back again in the levant. Again another impossibility.

Don't get wrong, RossRonin, I like a good and imaginative story, but I have to draw a line between reality (or what is really possible) and what is fantasy, and this battle in Exodus or Joshua, and this definitely fall under fantasy or the mythological.

Over the last 15-16 years, I have read a lot of stories, from not just the bible, but of other religions and myths, fables and folklore, legends and history, so I actually don't hate the bible. I just often disagree with those who are religious, and take them literal and real. I just find it absurd that something like the battle, or talking serpent or donkey, are taken as true and real.

Below of every replies of mine is my signature, which I have included 2 websites - Timeless Myths and Dark Mirrors of Heaven, showed how much I love good storytelling.

 

[Bunyip]

Dawkins talks about science as if it were an entity in itself. But science is not a thing. It's a method for understanding and interacting with physical reality and it flows from the human mind's capacity for inquiry, observation, data collection, analysis, deductive reasoning, inference, etc.

So it's not science that makes planes fly and cars drive, but human intelligence--intelligence housed in a 170.68 billion-cell* organ of daunting complexity--and science is not responsible for that computer's computing.

Dawkins, like all atheists, makes use of an enormously powerful bioelectric computer system in order to frequently argue against God, when the greatest evidence for God is the very same computer Dawkins uses to argue God out of existence: his own brain.

That is just silly.

Maybe so, but it's the rare atheist that sooner or later does not resort to the defense that Evolution is "proven" to be true. Yet nowhere in the world can be found the first example of a random genetic mutation leading even the smallest microscopic organelle to "evolve" into something new and improved: we are asked to take it on faith that once upon a time, mutations and something called 'natural selection' miraculously engineered organelles, organs and organisms of awesome complexity, without the least shred of intelligence employed in the process. Nothing random ever engineered an ox cart, much less an ox.

*Suzana Herculano-Houzel, Instituto de Ciências Biomé́dicas of Rio de Janeiro, The Journal of Comparative Neurology, 2009, 513:532-541.

It is hard to imagine how anyone could more catastrophically fail to grasp the most basic elements of science and logic.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

You have not understood the exchange....though I can understand why....in any event it had nothing to do with you except your wanting to pile on...

It's a web forum. The whole point of a forum is people can read posts and respond to them if they feel they have something to say. I had something to say, and I made a very clear and concise point without resorting to any kind of personal remarks or patronizing attitude. I strongly suggest you learn to react more reasonably in future and try being more mature.

 

[gnostic]

Why are you like outhouse and other atheist members replying with multiple posts...a lot of this stuff you post is redundant, unclear, confusing, and is simply not good enough for an honest debate..

Why do you and others like you don't understand that evolution is "biology", NOT ATHEISM, no matter how many times we have you explained to you?

This stubborn ignorance and bias of yours, are not a good traits.

The moment the topic "evolution" or "science" is brought up, you immediately think "atheism" and "atheists".

Neither science nor evolution have to do with atheism or theism, PERIOD!

If you bother to look at some of the posters' profile, there are many here, who accepted and understand evolution, are are actually religious and theists.

Charles Darwin was never an atheist. He was still a Christian, when he wrote On Origin of Species. It was only later, that he wrote in one of his letters before he died, that he became agnostic.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

It's a web forum. The whole point of a forum is people can read posts and respond to them if they feel they have something to say. I had something to say, and I made a very clear and concise point without resorting to any kind of personal remarks or patronizing attitude. I strongly suggest you learn to react more reasonably in future and try being more mature.

What you said had nothing to do with the context of my exchange with Bunyip...it is irrelevant... If you want to engage me directly on anything...please put it to me...but don't quote something that is not in context and expect me to debate it....

 

[Bunyip]

What you said had nothing to do with the context of my exchange with Bunyip...it is irrelevant... If you want to engage me directly on anything...please put it to me...but don't quote something that is not in context and expect me to debate it....

Nobody expects you to debate anything Ben. If you could do that we would have noticed by now. If you don't get the answers you want, you throw a tantrum and start being rude. It is hardly adult debate.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Why do you and others like you don't understand that evolution is "biology", NOT ATHEISM, no matter how many times we have you explained to you?

This stubborn ignorance and bias of yours, are not a good traits.

The moment the topic "evolution" or "science" is brought up, you immediately think "atheism" and "atheists".

Neither science nor evolution have to do with atheism or theism, PERIOD!

If you bother to look at some of the posters' profile, there are many here, who accepted and understand evolution, are are actually religious and theists.

Charles Darwin was never an atheist. He was still a Christian, when he wrote On Origin of Species. It was only later, that he wrote in one of his letters before he died, that he became agnostic.

What evolution quote of mine are you referring to....my point was about multiple posting...

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Nobody expects you to debate anything Ben. If you could do that we would have noticed by now. If you don't get the answers you want, you throw a tantrum and start being rude. It is hardly adult debate.

Irony in action...starting the morning with a rude ad hom....

 

[Bunyip]

Irony in action...starting the morning with an ad hom...

That is hardly an ad hom Ben. Just try to keep your cool, this is a fun forum for friendly discussions - not a war. There were no multiple posts and nobody is attacking you. Just try to focus on the arguments.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

What you said had nothing to do with the context of my exchange with Bunyip...it is irrelevant... If you want to engage me directly on anything...please put it to me...but don't quote something that is not in context and expect me to debate it....

It's really very simple. You and Bunyip had an exchange which ended with you basically telling them that what they said made no sense. I believed what they said was perfectly clear, and so I took the liberty of elaborating on what I felt was their point. I did this with no malice whatsoever, and yet what I get back from you is insults and a patronizing attitude. If I was operating under some misapprehension, then the adult thing to do is simply to point out my error and clarify your own position. You didn't do that. Instead, you resorted to childish comments and insults.

I'm not "expecting" you to debate anything. One of the other benefits of web forums is the ability to pick and choose what you respond to. If you felt what I said was irrelevant, you were free to ignore it - I was hardly going to pursue you over a post that I believed was merely a clarification on my part. But, instead, you chose to respond to my perfectly civil post with a tantrum. I don't "expect" a debate, but I do expect respect, courtesy and maturity. I can only repeat the suggestion that you strongly re-evaluate the way you react to posters on these forums.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

That is hardly an ad hom Ben. Just try to keep your cool, this is a fun forum for friendly discussions - not a war. There were no multiple posts and nobody is attacking you. Just try to focus on the arguments.

What for example is the argument in your post to me to focus on.....the rudeness?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

It's really very simple. You and Bunyip had an exchange which ended with you basically telling them that what they said made no sense.
.

What exactly did I say that made no sense...and provide the context as you understood it....

 

[Bunyip]

What argument is there to focus on...none that I can see, except atheists addressing their posts to me that I have no idea why...

What for example is the argument in your post to me to focus on.....the rudeness?

Ben, I'm not sure why you would be surprised that people respond to your posts to them. If you don't want atheists to answer your questions - don't post to them.
Focus on simply understanding a simple distinction ok Ben? You keep confusing atheism for biology, science and so on. Now confusing atheism for biology makes any meaningful exchange with you pretty pointless. So try to keep in mind this simple point;

ATHEISM: Is the disbelief in god.
BIOLOGY: Is the study of life on earth.

Evolution is part of biology Ben, it is not related to atheism.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Focus on simply understanding a simple distinction ok Ben? You keep confusing atheism for biology, science and so on. Now confusing atheism for biology makes any meaningful exchange with you pretty pointless. So try to keep in mind this simple point;

ATHEISM: Is the disbelief in god.
BIOLOGY: Is the study of life on earth.

Evolution is part of biology Ben, it is not related to atheism.

Show me where I confuse atheism for biology?

 

[Bunyip]

Show me where I confuse atheism for biology?

Sure. Your recent post #159 is the most recent on this thread. There are plenty of others.