It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Science vs. religion...

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 14 2005 @ 04:07 PM
link   
Well, like I said James. Many religious people debate the literal and nuanced theory of the bible coupled with scientific discovery and archeology.

In fact, I believe they just found a box with the bones of Poncious Pilot (back then they used to burn the dead and save their bones in a box which went in a tomb. At least if you were important of had money) I, personally, believe evolution to be very possible (especially if you watch animal planet or the discovery channel) even thought I am Christian as well.

Also, no one that I know of said it was a crackpot shot in the dark.

In fact, the theory of gravity might be wrong and in fact only be an explanation of the effect of something else. There are many theories out there now about that very thing, so it’s not a shut case (and man would it take a long time to read a portion of it).

Covering Tesla is hard enough.

But who knows. This is why we need to foster learning rather than fighting (and I am not insinuating that you guys are not open-minded). I wish I could get through to people sometimes to say that neither side is sure and no one has the answers.

The pompous on the scientific side are just as bad as the religious are in their insistence of their monopoly on the "truth" when most likely we are not capable of truly understanding the truth of the universe because we are finite creatures.

Even the big bang theory takes quite a bit of soul searching to really get any kind of grasp on. It leads to hundreds of other questions with no real answers yet, so I agree that science is a form of religion (which is apparent in the backlash from the anti-religious and only intensified with the Christians vote last Nov.)

Let's all relax a bit, and we could learn something.

Maybe have an intellectually stimulating conversation about it.


[edit on 14-1-2005 by KrazyJethro]




posted on Jan, 14 2005 @ 06:35 PM
link   
Science has nothing to do with Religion, it's the word "Evolution" that you are after. Evolution is not Science, it's a theory, with the exception of micro. Many religious people are doctors and scientist. Take Kent Hovind for example.



posted on Jan, 14 2005 @ 07:13 PM
link   
Science evolves...whenever someone says "that's the way that works", someone comes along a few years later and says "yea, but not all the time, just look at this' and we wind up having to change our view. Science is all about the details, and the further we get into those details, the more it begins to look like we just never had anything right. We all used to think that atoms were the basic building blocks and then some fool comes along with Quantum Physics and starts messing our heads with String Theories.

Religions, on the other hand, are cut and dried, especially when dealing with fundamentalism...the resistance to change is total. Even the literature stays static...only the interpretations are looked at and then only with an eye to the heirarchy, in case some-one gets out of line.

But there's a third...one that no-one takes seriously, and that is spirituality. It's like a religion without a Book or priesthood and is all about how we perceive it on an individual basis. It can only be speculated upon by yourself, because someone else's take on it will always be different.

Bottom line, imo...Science and spirituality are subject to change and discovery, while religion is bound by dogma and it's stolid acceptance.



[edit on 14-1-2005 by masqua]



posted on Jan, 14 2005 @ 08:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by f4k3r
Science has nothing to do with Religion, it's the word "Evolution" that you are after. Evolution is not Science, it's a theory, with the exception of micro. Many religious people are doctors and scientist. Take Kent Hovind for example.


Look, you are not getting the context of what I'm saying. Let me try another approach.

Science is a religion to some because it holds the universal truths.



posted on Jan, 15 2005 @ 06:22 PM
link   
Evolution is a sciecne, well, the act of studying it is. But technically evolution is a word, nothing more.

Also, scientology anyone? Isn't that like a science religon?



posted on Jan, 15 2005 @ 11:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by f4k3r
Science has nothing to do with Religion, it's the word "Evolution" that you are after. Evolution is not Science, it's a theory, with the exception of micro. Many religious people are doctors and scientist. Take Kent Hovind for example.


Evolution is a fact. Almost no one in the scientific community denies that evolution happens. No one knows why it happens, and so the various mechanisms of evolution are constantly researched and debated, but evolution remains a fact.
www.gate.net...

One study has shown that 0.15% of the 480,000 biologists and geologists accept creationism.
www.talkorigins.org...

Kent Hovind is really a very bad example to use as a scientist who is a creatonist. Also known as Doctor Dino, Hovind is an evangelical christian who poses as a scientist. He even offers an award of $250,000 to anyone who can prove evolution to him. No one has done so to his satisfaction as he has rigged the game so no one can win. Here is a page showing how this deception works.
www.geocities.com...



posted on Jan, 16 2005 @ 08:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by KrazyJethro

Science is a religion to some because it holds the universal truths.

The word "religion" is associated with the belief in a "god," though. That's why it doesn't describe science very well. Scientists will change their beliefs according to what they discover. Religious people will never do that. In fact, they will deny any fact that doesn't specifically support the bible version of history. In other words, they'll choose their completely unproven hypothesis over a scientific theory that conflicts with their preconceived notions.

[edit on 16-1-2005 by Damned]



posted on Jan, 17 2005 @ 02:42 AM
link   


This is the one recent thing that christians, catholics and other religiuos people try and full off. I am completely baffled at how such a concept, logically, works in their head.

You cant have it both ways here people!!!. Excuse me if i am wrong, but doesn the bible say that GOD created adam and eve. How could he create and make them evolve from something else??? What preceeded Adam and Eve then??...They must have evolved from something to come to their human form. The fact that ur saying they evolved would argue your religion's base.

Maybe you jsut misread the bible....



Or maybe you just don't have the abillity to think metaphorically. The bible is god's truth as transcribed by men Even today the averages man's mind is not prepared to understand the full nature of the universe. In all of the gospel's God communicates with man through visions whic use symbols to disseminate truth. INHO the stories in the bible are those visions passed down in literary form. In the OT when it says that god created man out of the dust of the earth and then brethed the spirit of life into them I interpert that to be an endorsement of evolution.
Man was created from the dust of the earth, what is the dust of the earth represent, perhaps the millions of dead and extinct species which were the ancestors of man? As for the breath of life could that not represent true sentience?
Re-read genesis and you will find a remarkable correlaton between the scientific version of the universe's beginnings and the biblical account.
On the first day god said let there be light - Big bang?
Seperated the heavens from the earth- The forming of the earth from the dust and gas cloud of the early universe
It even gets the order of animals created correctly, first the "fisshes of the sea" - life first evolved in the seas according to scientific theory
The beasts of the earth - life moved from the seas to the earth,
The birds of the air - the last place to be colonised by life
and finally man.
When reading the OT it is important to remember that they were not as educated as we are and that most of the bibles teachings from the OT up to the preaching of Jesus was in allegorical or symbolic form.



posted on Jan, 17 2005 @ 07:13 AM
link   
science vs. religion

(warning you may be mad at me if your religous)








guys who made Telephone cars tv planes and coffee machines
VS.
the people who burned them



posted on Jan, 17 2005 @ 07:15 AM
link   
it all comes down to belief. some people believe in the scientific version of what started us all and others follow the religous route. but which one do you follow?



posted on Dec, 12 2012 @ 01:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by chrisamatic
it all comes down to belief. some people believe in the scientific version of what started us all and others follow the religous route. but which one do you follow?


I cannot let this go. It does not all come down to belief. Religious belief is the exact opposite of scientific explanation. Scientists and intellectuals do not "believe in" scientific explanation, they simply use the explanations for useful applications such as making accurate predictions and creating new technology for religious people to take for granted (such as the Internet).

Belief doesn't create cell phones, it doesn't save lives, it doesn't create the Internet. Science does those things particularly because science is NOT belief. Science is a method which gives us the best explanations given current observation and evidence. Science does not give us absolute truths, it does not prove anything right or wrong. Science does not make absolute claims nor does it really tell us what is or isn't the case. Religion does these things, not science. Science picks certain explanations, by a specific method, out of an infinite pool of explanations. It doesn't tell us if that explanation is correct or not, and it doesn't pretend to.

Science is probably (almost guaranteed to be, in fact) wrong about everything in the absolute sense. This is a good thing because it means we can improve our explanations as new evidence comes in to correct the current errors. Do you see any religious people claiming that their religious beliefs are almost guaranteed to be wrong? Do you see them pointing out which parts of their holy books are wrong based on new evidence? Do you see them coming to a consensus in changing their dogma? No, of course not, because religious belief is dogmatic, and science is the exact opposite of dogma.

Science is found wrong again and again, and it is improved because of it. This method, while not intuitive, is known to work because it gives us useful, tangible, demonstrable technological and intellectual improvements.

Religion is guaranteed by its proponents to be 100% correct from day one. This is NOT science and it gives us absolutely nothing useful whatsoever besides warm fuzzy feelings to make us feel better when times get rough. It is a belief based on faith, which is the excuse people give for believing something when they have no evidence to support it.

Faith is not evidence. Do not equate religious belief with scientific explanation.



posted on Dec, 12 2012 @ 02:07 PM
link   
old thread, but liking your comment, a lot!



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join