• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Why has science always been the bad guy

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
It just occurred to me: Maybe it's the politicians who are the bad guys? Yeah, what about the politicians?

Dang! It's so hard to find someone somebody else doesn't think are the bad guys. This is all so confusing. I'm going back to heavy drinking.
 

idav

Being
Premium Member
Can you believe that the Wahhabis called the car what translates to "the chariot of Satan" when it first came to Saudi Arabia?

How could they?

That is really strange cause a Chariot of Satan is a Harley cause they were built in the US and utilized by Hells Angels.:yes:
 

idav

Being
Premium Member
that the condition in fact exists, and that it warrants the pretentious indignation.

Granted facts exist and Science is nothing but pretentious about it mocking all the religionists with their vast superior knowledge. Thank goodness I'm not one of them evil scientists.
 

idav

Being
Premium Member
Dang! It's so hard to find someone somebody else doesn't think are the bad guys. This is all so confusing. I'm going back to heavy drinking.

Really it is anyone who is more knowledgeable who are evil bad guys trying to destroy our simple ways. I've got quite a laundry list myself.
 

rusra02

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
The above is completely false. First of all, it has been mentioned to you many times that "theory" in this context implies a variety of hypotheses, theories, and axioms, and it has been established time and time again that species evolve, plus overwhelmingly geneticists well know in general how and why this takes place. And even common sense should tell you that species evolve.

Secondly, what does an opinion of a law professor have to do with this? Fine, he has an opinion-- so what? Does he have any scientific background whatsoever? Does he use his religion as a set of blinders versus enlightenment?

Thirdly, it's obvious that your theology is terribly flawed, because you're taking one opinion on the creation accounts while ignoring the others. As I've posted before, polls show that most Christian theologians simply do not have a problem with the ToE as long as it's understood that God was behind it all.

First, is it your argument that we are to accept the ToME because you equate variety within species, which no one argues occurs, with the notion that one family of animals changes into another, or so-called macro evolution? Common sense (and the evidence) tells me that is false.

Secondly, the law professor spoke of the bullying tactics some evolutionists use to stifle debate. Your denigration of this professor reinforces his point, IMO.

Third, truth is unaffected by how many believe it, or disbelieve it. I venture to say many "Christian" theologians approve of their followers going to war, but that doesn't change what the Bible says about it. (Matthew 26:52) Jesus foretold he would say to many who claimed to follow him; ‘I never knew you! Get away from me, you workers of lawlessness!’ (Matthew 7:23)
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
First, is it your argument that we are to accept the ToME because you equate variety within species, which no one argues occurs, with the notion that one family of animals changes into another, or so-called macro evolution? Common sense (and the evidence) tells me that is false.

That is not at all how the process works, so you're way off base. Groups do not evolve to form different species.

Secondly, the law professor spoke of the bullying tactics some evolutionists use to stifle debate. Your denigration of this professor reinforces his point, IMO.

I did not denigrate the professor, so now you're just fabricating a straw-man.

Third, truth is unaffected by how many believe it, or disbelieve it. I venture to say many "Christian" theologians approve of their followers going to war, but that doesn't change what the Bible says about it. (Matthew 26:52) Jesus foretold he would say to many who claimed to follow him; ‘I never knew you! Get away from me, you workers of lawlessness!’ (Matthew 7:23)

A do agree majority doesn't matter as far as what you or anyone else may choose to believe or not believe, but the point I was making is that if it's supposedly so logical that the ToE is illogical, then why would these scholars, who are Christian, disagree with you. To me, it seemingly implies that either you or they are missing something, and based on you're writing, I would suggest that it's probably you.
 

idav

Being
Premium Member
I believe the bullying tactics used by some evolutionists reflects dogmatism, not a search for scientific truth.

See that is the thing. First your calling them evolutionists when mostly the entire body of the scientific community have facts that prove evolution to be true. Second these people are not the bad guys, they have a genuine search for the truth and are often times very religious. Religious want to paint evolution as dogma to confirm their own bias for whatever flavor of creationism they hold onto. Religion is dogma not science. Science has nothing to gain by proving god is out of the picture, they don't want to prove god is impossible, your talking about millions of theists who believe in Evolution because the universe is so much more than what young earthers would expect, but they should expect so much more potential from their god as the universe is so much more then piddly humans. I don't see the problem, why so many religious think science is the boogeyman is unnerving.
 

rusra02

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
That is not at all how the process works, so you're way off base. Groups do not evolve to form different species.



I did not denigrate the professor, so now you're just fabricating a straw-man.



A do agree majority doesn't matter as far as what you or anyone else may choose to believe or not believe, but the point I was making is that if it's supposedly so logical that the ToE is illogical, then why would these scholars, who are Christian, disagree with you. To me, it seemingly implies that either you or they are missing something, and based on you're writing, I would suggest that it's probably you.

Why would these scholars, who are [professed] Christian, disagree with [not me but Christ]? (Matthew 19:4) You should be able to answer that question for yourself, based on Matthew 7:21-23. Calling oneself a doctor doesn't make one a doctor, and calling oneself a Christian doesn't make one a Christian, IMO.
 

rusra02

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
See that is the thing. First your calling them evolutionists when mostly the entire body of the scientific community have facts that prove evolution to be true. Second these people are not the bad guys, they have a genuine search for the truth and are often times very religious. Religious want to paint evolution as dogma to confirm their own bias for whatever flavor of creationism they hold onto. Religion is dogma not science. Science has nothing to gain by proving god is out of the picture, they don't want to prove god is impossible, your talking about millions of theists who believe in Evolution because the universe is so much more than what young earthers would expect, but they should expect so much more potential from their god as the universe is so much more then piddly humans. I don't see the problem, why so many religious think science is the boogeyman is unnerving.

Neither the Bible nor true Christians are anti-science. To the contrary, science has accomplished much good for humanity. On the other hand, evolution theory has been rejected by many scientists. Why do so many evolutionists accept what is an unproven theory? IMO, conditioning from youth on is a factor. All one hears from the media and academia, with rare exceptions, is evolutionary propaganda. Why? Why do many prominent evolutionists insist that macroevolution is a fact? Richard Lewontin, an influential evolutionist, candidly wrote that many scientists are willing to accept unproven scientific claims because they “have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.” Many scientists refuse even to consider the possibility of an intelligent Designer because, as Lewontin writes, “we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”

In this regard, sociologist Rodney Stark is quoted in Scientific American as saying: “There’s been 200 years of marketing that if you want to be a scientific person you’ve got to keep your mind free of the fetters of religion.” He further notes that in research universities, “the religious people keep their mouths shut.” (Quote from "Was Life Created?")

To present evolutionary scientists as the guys with white hats and white coats, and believers in ID as bedarkened religious fanatics, is simply reinforcing the propaganda some evolutionists "propagate" to stifle debate, IMO.
 

idav

Being
Premium Member
Neither the Bible nor true Christians are anti-science. To the contrary, science has accomplished much good for humanity. On the other hand, evolution theory has been rejected by many scientists. Why do so many evolutionists accept what is an unproven theory? IMO, conditioning from youth on is a factor. All one hears from the media and academia, with rare exceptions, is evolutionary propaganda. Why? Why do many prominent evolutionists insist that macroevolution is a fact? Richard Lewontin, an influential evolutionist, candidly wrote that many scientists are willing to accept unproven scientific claims because they “have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.” Many scientists refuse even to consider the possibility of an intelligent Designer because, as Lewontin writes, “we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”

In this regard, sociologist Rodney Stark is quoted in Scientific American as saying: “There’s been 200 years of marketing that if you want to be a scientific person you’ve got to keep your mind free of the fetters of religion.” He further notes that in research universities, “the religious people keep their mouths shut.” (Quote from "Was Life Created?")

To present evolutionary scientists as the guys with white hats and white coats, and believers in ID as bedarkened religious fanatics, is simply reinforcing the propaganda some evolutionists "propagate" to stifle debate, IMO.
Science has no reason to stifle debate on evolution. They are after the truth. The propaganda is that creationism needs to be the truth cause there is a god. There is no debate IMO. As you state else where that evolution keeps winning the lottery by the millions. I don't disagree with that, Life has won the lottery and anyone alive has won the lottery several billion times over. We don't have a problem with that and neither does science or math.
 

kashmir

Well-Known Member
we all know that our atoms live on, you cant be that stupid to say that life actually dies, even **** becomes fertilizer.
Oh yah, science is so stupid they think that toxic waste becomes fertilizer, after they been long and dead, 220,000 years from now, it may become fertilizer.
My bad
 

Awkward Fingers

Omphaloskeptic
we all know that our atoms live on, you cant be that stupid to say that life actually dies, even **** becomes fertilizer.
Oh yah, science is so stupid they think that toxic waste becomes fertilizer, after they been long and dead, 220,000 years from now, it may become fertilizer.
My bad

I have to admit, I'm failing to see either what you're referencing here, or your point...

What is it you're trying to get across with this?
 

rusra02

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
It's practically proven. Being that evolution takes place over thousands of years we aren't able to observer it in a lab setting which is impossible. The same way its impossible to go back and observe creation. Being that we can't observe either, but we have a plethora of evidence supporting evolution compared to evidence supporting creation, evolution wins. A theory becomes proven fact when it is observed in multiple controlled settings.

Obviously, I and millions of others, including many biologists and other scientists, disagree. "Cambridge Professor John Barrow says that the belief in “the evolution of life and mind” hits “dead-ends at every stage. There are just so many ways in which life can fail to evolve in a complex and hostile environment that it would be sheer hubris to suppose that, simply given enough carbon and enough time, anything is possible.” (Quote from g11/10)
 

Darkstorn

This shows how unique i am.
I'm guessing this has something to do with a very basic human trait:

You believe in something well enough for it to be considered fact to yourself. Then someone comes in with actual evidence to prove you're wrong.

Most people would not openly submit to a situation that could be considered embarassing.

The overzealous anti-science mantra some people show is merely them feeling stupid when someone smarter comes in and proves them wrong: They don't like that one bit.

"How could someone other than myself be better than myself? Ridiculous. I must get angry and intimidate the opposition into taking back their claims. No other option."

TLDR: People don't like being proven wrong. That's why they get so mad about it. The exceptions are the ones who learn from mistakes. Sadly a small percentage of humanity.

/E: Like others have said: There are scientists who believe in obviously non-scientific religions: They see the natural world(the one scientists find information about) as an extension of their deity's capabilities. Fundamentalists cannot adapt their beliefs into the modern world even if the modern world hits them right in the middle of their faces. This to me shows their lack of conviction to their OWN views... And they are angry about it.
 
Last edited:

Maldini

Active Member
Is it that tough to realize anything other than science and scientific arguments are merely assumptions based on gut-feelings?
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
Why would these scholars, who are [professed] Christian, disagree with [not me but Christ]? (Matthew 19:4) You should be able to answer that question for yourself, based on Matthew 7:21-23. Calling oneself a doctor doesn't make one a doctor, and calling oneself a Christian doesn't make one a Christian, IMO.

So, are you saying that if they don't accept your interpretation of the creation accounts that they ain't true Christians? Secondly, do you really think that it would be beyond Jesus to accept a narrative that's allegorical and run with it, especially since he often used parables, which are a form of allegory?
 

idav

Being
Premium Member
What in hell are you babbling about?

You had said that I am taking facts as a given and that pretentiousness should be the default for having such facts. Thats how I read it anyway. I don't really think so but the religious do see it that way. Religious see the science trying to be knowledgeable and pretentious above that of what God is, how dare they!!! That does seem to be a huge contention. How dare man even consider that they could know as much as the most high. I don't really think Scientists are trying to step on Gods proverbial toes but it seems that it is what it amounts to.
 

idav

Being
Premium Member
Is it that tough to realize anything other than science and scientific arguments are merely assumptions based on gut-feelings?

That does make sense, these gut feelings are the spirit of god don't you know.
 
Top