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.

 

Using arguements based on Science is pretty lame

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 07:52 PM
link   
Provocative title, I know. Please here me out before you jump all over me though. I think people arguing ID VS evolution always fail to mention some pretty important things.

There is something that has always bothered me about the I.D. vs Science debate.

Actually two things. And they are both about how Science stacks the deck in their favour.



1. People assume evolution or scientific discoveries support their Atheism

There is no logical reason for anyone to make this assumption. By definition God has used the 'laws of the universe' to create existance. The more we learn about how those laws work and function has no bearing on the existance of a creator.

When Science discovered the double-helix structure of DNA we were more enlightened about the workings of God and how life has always been on this planet. We were not suddenly given undeniable evidence that there is no God.

When the theory of evolution was first put forth, there was absolutely no evidence introduced that would remove the need of a creator in existance. To this day, there has been no evidence presented which can explain the power behind the universe and how something so complex as the universe can exist 'by chance'. Even the term 'by chance' is a cop-out. Whenever you hear a scientist or researcher say the terms 'luck', 'by chance' or 'for lack of a better', you can guarantee he/she is pulling the wool over your eyes.

There is no room in science for any of these things. Scientists have the Big Bang theory. That holds no water, it may work out mathematically with our current understanding of the universe, but it doesn't attempt to explain how existence came to be. Where did those two infinitely dense particles come from anyways? And why only two? And an even bigger question, if there where these two infinitely dense particles swimming around, for no apperant reason, in the vastness of space, what are the odds of them even coming close to each other, let alone having a head on collision?! Fantasy.


2. Science and evolution have the inherent right to revision. Belief does not.



Unfortunately, for the believers, Science has claimed a monopoly on revision.

Could you imagine if we were stuck with pre-renaissance era science for the eternity of our existance? Or if out of nowhere a moritorium on advancement of belief was taken out against scientists?

"Well, first you said the earth was flat, so now you have to stick with that forever".

"What do you mean the Earth doesn't revolve around the sun?! Wait a minute here, you can't just go changing your mind like that. Only if you are 100% right all of the time from the beginning until the end, perfectly clear, and without question, can you tell us how it all works. If you are just guessing then keep your mouth shut."

Can you imagine a world where this happened? What a joke that would be right? Exactly this thing has happened to belief. Believers are stuck with 2000 year old information that they cannot revise, cannot rewrite and cannot reinterpret. The reason for this is because people with a 'belief' in science (like who doesn't believe in science, the ones I'm talking about are using it as a surrogate for a belief in God), have schackled the believer into this paradox.

You have to look at the scientific state of the world 2000 years ago. Of course science, as revised and 'new' (and just as incomplete and bumbling as it ever was), as it is, looking back at explainations and stories and 'facts' of the past can poke holes in it. There is no surprise that a modern learned person can find fault in a great many things that antiquity leave sus.

My point in this post is not to judge either side or even make a decision myself, it is only to point out the two biggest 'unfair advantages' one side holds over the other.

If the detractors of intelligent design were to structure their arguements without referencing or taking advantage of my two 'unfair advantage' points, I don't think they would even be convincing to each other.

I think it is best practice that we give both ideologies a fair and equal playing field.

Allowing a scientific arguement to alter it's base information, and allow for different interpretations of data and even new data without doing the same for the intelligent design crowd is largely unfair.




posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 08:53 PM
link   
#2 is exactly WHY science is the better way to view the world. Because it is open to change as new information comes in.

The stagnation of religion is poisoning our planet right now, and we'd be much better off without invisible friends and the wars caused by belief in them.

[edit] at least science doesn't make claims without proof. Religion has no proof at all.

Backwards reasoning is one of the things that is sending America, at least, into a new intellectual dark age.

[edit on 13-12-2007 by MajorMalfunction]



posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 10:44 PM
link   
Science attempts to explain things based on observation, and religion attempts to explains things based on faith. I have no problem with the theory of Intelligent Design personally. I do know that science cannot explain what came before the Big Bang, and that Intelligent Design falls short on the scientific stage with an exlanation based on faith. Just because we don't know what could have brought about this amazing existence doesn't mean it had to be some kind of creator. It just means we don't have all the answers yet, whether we're for Intelligent Design or Science.

The problem is that since Intelligent Design is not based in science, it has no place in the science curriculum. I believe ID was created in an effort to force religion into the back door of public schools, but that it can serve as a driving philosophical school of thought. I don't see why that's such a big problem. Religion is theology, not science. Intelligent Design is philosophy, not science.

By the way, you're assuming the Big Bang theory is the only one held by science enthusiasts. It isn't. If you do your research, you'll find there are quite a lot of scientific theories that don't include the big bang.

The fact is that we don't know what happened before the events were set in motion. For all we know the events could have been set in motion long, long before the actual "bang" occured. We still don't know why. I personally don't think there ever was a big bang. I think we still exist in that singularity. The energy held therein sits on top of itself in a sense. Our perception of all of this energy creates the illusion of a physical world with space, distance, etc. So basically this is all in your head.

Freud said that we're everything in our dreams. Humanity is obviously still unaware of its true nature, hence all of these questions. Perhaps this is more like a dream and we really are everything.



posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 11:54 PM
link   
There seem's to be an acknowledge consences that religion is slowly stumbling. Why is that? I do believe it has to do with what has come out of religions past and the thing's from the not so distant past, molestations, same sex affairs amoung priest, ect. Could come to the conclusion that the religios society, people of standing office or public respact, have done a pretty good job of screwing thing's up for the reconditioning of man to accept religion or religious faiths and beliefs.

Once again, "I have to agree with Cypher."
There are too many explanations of how it all began, but on the same page, for the person that is a believer of the faith, it allows them to breathe comfortably knowing there are their acception's of being safer and much better off as a homosapien in todays world. And as the OP had stated in his post, there is no fare ground when the conversation or explanation becomes poluted with an intertangling of self absorbed beliefs from either side.

My youngest sister is currently going to college for "World Religion and Theology" and she recently did a thesis on 2 different religions. The acceptable conclusion to her finding's were that if the two different religion's didn't sit at the same table, there would never be a civilized conclusion without some acceptance from both sides. She, (Christian) allowed herself to deductively find this out herself, without influence or out side force. It blew me away to read the thesis because I am Atheist. She understands the conflict that goes on with the religion vs science effects of society, but she also intrusted to me that it does not waver her faith because it is who she became and is comfortable with herself and the fact that there may be more to the truth than meets the eye. Both scientifically and theoretically.

That was very insightful on my sisters part, she goes to church, but don't preach to other's. If you are doing wrong , she would tell you, but she wouldn't judge you. All in all, if there were a president in office that didn't use the word "God" or "Bless us all" I would tend to accept the fact that the individual has had an epiphany into self. And thats where this all should come from.

Cypher mentioned Freud, Here is another description that he gives into understanding ones self, which is by coincidence my signature:
"Thoughts of the mind produce after their kind"

And lets not forget dear old RAMI:
"A man who knows men has knowledge,
but a man who knows himself has insight."

Great thread, look forward to checking up on it later.....



posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 11:58 PM
link   
Right, well when it comes to using edit: SCIENCE!!! as evidence, and using faith as evidence, I know which Im going with. And its not Benny Hinn

[edit on 14-12-2007 by 3_Libras]



posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 12:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by 3_Libras
Right, well when it comes to using religion as evidence, and using faith as evidence, I know which Im going with. And its not Benny Hinn


Religion and faith are hand in hand. One supports the other , though one comes before the other, you would need both to acclimate that you are or are not a beleiver in faith.

So, "Whats your point you are trying to get across with your statement?"



posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 12:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Allred5923

Originally posted by 3_Libras
Right, well when it comes to using religion as evidence, and using faith as evidence, I know which Im going with. And its not Benny Hinn


Religion and faith are hand in hand. One supports the other , though one comes before the other, you would need both to acclimate that you are or are not a beleiver in faith.

So, "Whats your point you are trying to get across with your statement?"


Que? Basically Im saying that science is uber-cool, and religion isnt. Thats the gist of my argument. And Im not providing scientific evidence for that


Wait, I just realised what you meant, I wrote religion and faith, when I actually meant science and faith. Sigh

[edit on 14-12-2007 by 3_Libras]



posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 12:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Enrikez
 


The reason you are making such a statement is because you do not understand the nature of Science or faith. In Science there can never be a place where God is an answer to a question because God is too mysterious a concept. When just think about the concept of "god" and pose the Who, What, Where, When ,How ? questions, you get no answers. Science on the other hand tries to give answers than that have some sense of ties with existing knowledge. Technically speaking a god would not be bound by the laws of physics, can create anything and has infinite power. Something like that has no ties with anything we know. There is not even a shred of proof that something like that exists. Besides, even if there was a creature like that, science would never give it the title of "god" but would treat it merely as a creature or a life form because in Science the concept of God is as ridiculous as the concept of Santa Claus. Many people believe that both these things exsists but belief is not hardly enough.

Another point I need to make clear is that people keep saying the universe, evolution etc was all "luck" when in fact the term luck is not really the right term. Evolution is based on natural selection and the universe is based on very concrete physical laws that allow for certain events to occur, granted that there is a degree of uncertainty but that is merely due to our lack of understanding rather than any flaw with the concept of science.

You have to understand that the world we know today and the science we have today is not old at all. What we know today is hardly the product of at the most 400 years of knowledge or 200 years of serious study. It has only been in the 20th century that there has been a vast leap in our knowledge of the universe around us.

To compare Science and religion is a foolish debate at best because science is about the study of the universe around us. Faith and religion are the theories of us. Our culture, morality and life. They are about different things and they answer completely different questions.

Atheists dont believe not because of science but because of religion itself. There have always been atheists even before science has a few answers and theories. Science has just empowered them to be more vocal about their discontent. But the reason for the existence of Atheists is not science but rather religion itself. Some people are dissatisfied with religion, as some percentage have always been and they choose to live outside the denominations of faith because it is possible to do so today.



posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 02:16 AM
link   
I don't think science is trying to destroy faith. But i do think that science, can move faith into another direction.
By getting a better understanding of nature and the universe we are getting a better understanding of ourselves.

As for religion, some older civilisations thought of the Earth, as our "mother", and the reason for all life, they didnt believe in some kind of "god" in heaven.

The problem I have with any kind of religion, is all in their history:
The crusades
The extremists
The many fights over what religion one most follow.

There are only a few religions that doesn't want to convert nonbelievers, and thoose very religions are in my opinion the ones that comes closest to being "the truth" if there is a truth.

I for one, will not support a religion witch very foundation is based in killing and suppression of people.

As for creation, I do not believe in the Big Bang theory, I even made a thread about it:

Big Bang ... Big Tjubang I say.

I find the mystery of our creation very interesting, but i do not need a "god" of creation to live my life in a loving fasion.

A little mind experiment:
If a child was born today in a remote and isolated location, with no knowledge of anything, would that child grow to love nature or a "god"?
Do you see anything on earth or in the universe, worthshipping a "god" besides humans?

The very thing i define as "god", is love and creation, the uncondetional love for our children, Nature and the universe itself.

Humans are not special, we are at the top of the foodchain yes, but that should tell us more about or responsibility, rather than giving us the imagination, that we where created by some "god".



posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 08:58 AM
link   
This post contains many ironies.

If using science based arguments is lame I don't know what using religious based arguments is... Because while science doesn't pretend to know everything, it does provide evidence. While religion is just a bronze-age fairytale.

Your only problem with science is that it's discoveries contradict your favorite holy book, well that's though!



posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 03:21 PM
link   
"Semen is produced in the lower back..."

Yes, give me science over religion any day. At least science doesn't demand I spend X hours per week/day just "being religious" and praying.

Ultimately though, science doesn't suggest there is no god or gods. A or a number of divine entities may have created the universe to work how science percieves it. Probably because that's the only way they could make it work.

"Oh yeah? How strong would you have made gravity? Because we tried making it lower and we found that animal's muscles got weaker and weaker..."

"Well, we had to use evolution because when something happened on the Earth, an entire species would die...they needed to adapt."



posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 06:27 PM
link   
um... actually, i'm quite sure people have argued evolution on a pure science standpoint instead of from a "there is no god" standpoint...

i mean, that's how the most demonstrably knowledgeable member on the subject, melatonin, paints it (though he is an atheist himself)
that's how i paint it

you can reconcile religion with evolution, it's not that hard.



posted on Dec, 15 2007 @ 12:40 AM
link   
Enrikez

Your whole point is basically: "The facts don't agree with me, Therefore: WHAAAA!!!"

[edit on 15-12-2007 by kegs]



posted on Dec, 15 2007 @ 05:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by kegs
Enrikez

Your whole point is basically: "The facts don't agree with me, Therefore: WHAAAA!!!"

[edit on 15-12-2007 by kegs]


I see no facts that deny the existence of God.



posted on Dec, 15 2007 @ 06:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by MajorMalfunction
#2 is exactly WHY science is the better way to view the world. Because it is open to change as new information comes in.


You basically are saying you believe in something that is imperfect and never complete - inadequate of full understanding. A lot of passionate spiritualists are working now on perfecting a belief system which accounts for reality and yet does not deny the possibility of a creative force.



The stagnation of religion is poisoning our planet right now, and we'd be much better off without invisible friends and the wars caused by belief in them.


Can you honestly say that you have looked at the fringes of religion and not just the majority of mainstream religion? You seem to stereotype all people in religion as being stagnant and causing wars. Foremost, there are a minority in religion who are progressive and do not start wars. In fact, if you look at history, most wars are started solely for the benefit of secular society with religious overtones, such as "radical Islamic fundamentalism".



[edit] at least science doesn't make claims without proof. Religion has no proof at all.


True, but if you are living in a ghetto, all you can see is what life you are given. In other words, science is the study of the natural world (which the bible makes mention) that is part of the grand deception. Of course science proves science. You say quoting the bible as proof is not valid because it supports itself by whatever means, but what you say supports science if in fact science is part of an intricate deception of a matrix reality?

Many Christians will not go this far to ask you this, because of lack of conviction of their faith, but I am asking how you you defend science if it only supported itself within a deception?



Backwards reasoning is one of the things that is sending America, at least, into a new intellectual dark age.


It's all been staged. Keep watching if you feel it is bad already.



posted on Dec, 15 2007 @ 07:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by C.C.Benjamin
I see no facts that deny the existence of God.


before i proceed, which one do you subscribe to and how do you interpret your religious text (if you have one)?



posted on Dec, 15 2007 @ 08:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Enrikez
 
our constitution and bill of rights diametrically opposes any type of religious government or control of its people....a few examples....free speech is not allowed in a religious society...free assembly also not allowed...the right to petition your government is not allowed in a religious government...self incrimination freedom is not allowed...the right to a fair and speedy trial by your peers is not allowed. a religious government is by its own doctrine, a facist, dictatorial, institution. this is not my own theory, it is the historical fact, something you "ID believers" need to read about rather then keeping your nose buried in the bible. this is why a religious-based society is so extremely dangerous. it does not allow questioning, reason, or opposing thought. people must follow its rules and dictates or they will be ostercized from society, harmed and even killed if they oppose those that are in control. and that's the word that says it all..."control". if as i mentioned before, you would read some history of the time these religions took shape, and the world as it was back then, you would understand why science and generally all the people that come to this website are a bit dismissive of religious dogma.



posted on Dec, 15 2007 @ 09:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by ben91069
You basically are saying you believe in something that is imperfect and never complete - inadequate of full understanding.


Science is not perfect and never claimed to be. But if science didn't exist you would be living in a cave, you would be wearing bear skin, you would be hungy most of the time, and getting food would be damn hard.


Can you honestly say that you have looked at the fringes of religion and not just the majority of mainstream religion? You seem to stereotype all people in religion as being stagnant and causing wars. Foremost, there are a minority in religion who are progressive and do not start wars. In fact, if you look at history, most wars are started solely for the benefit of secular society with religious overtones, such as "radical Islamic fundamentalism".


Religion, more often than not, is stagnant, conservative, backwards, primitive and retrograde. One glance at history will show you this.


True, but if you are living in a ghetto, all you can see is what life you are given. In other words, science is the study of the natural world (which the bible makes mention) that is part of the grand deception. Of course science proves science. You say quoting the bible as proof is not valid because it supports itself by whatever means, but what you say supports science if in fact science is part of an intricate deception of a matrix reality?


What makes you think we are in a matrix? Another claim with no evidence you see.. And a few old texts dating from the bronze age of hamanity is anything but evidence.

That's just a defence mechanism religious minds use to vilify science and modernity by claiming they are evil and that they are the works of satan. Do you see what I mean by retrograde now?



posted on Dec, 15 2007 @ 08:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Enrikez
1. People assume evolution or scientific discoveries support their Atheism

There is no logical reason for anyone to make this assumption.


You're right. I see that too. Dawkins saying that evolution took away the need for a creator and nonsense like that. You can't explain reincarnation, the afterlife, ghosts, precognition, consciousness, and a lot of other things without something beyond our materialist only science. I think one problem is that religion and science are two different things, but for some reason people keep acting as if they both are trying to explain the same things. The Bible isn't a science book, and science doesn't deal with those things l listed above. So I can't understand why there is so much interconnection between the two in this world (and on this board).

Science should stop trying to deny the existence of what it has never studied in the first place. And the religious people should stop trying to use religious texts as science texts, since most of them are written to pass information along that isn't meant to be taken literally, such as the earth being created in a 24 earth day.

But you can see that even starting a thread like this leads to all kinds of false posts, like those who think ID is the same as creationism. ID can mean we are some aliens little gardening experiment, but the anti-ID people have an agenda and lie about what ID is. There are also scientific tests given for ID, yet they claim there are none. What hypocrites they are since much of what we know of man's past is based on identifying intelligent design such as cave paintings, spear points, etc.

Then there's usual demeaning and hypocritical quotes referring to God as an "invisible being in the sky" and stupid crap like that, yet according to science we are expected to believe there are an infinite number of other universes but ours just happened to be the one that led to life, none of those other universes which can be proved to exist. I really hate hypocrisy, but that's all you see in threads like this. Plus no matter how many times I post about phenomenon that prove the existence of God and the afterlife, it appears that there are many who absolutely can't learn, proving they have no place in a discussion like this in the first place and proving they have a biased belief system that isn't based on observation or evidence or capable of changing with new facts and evidence.



posted on Dec, 16 2007 @ 03:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Elhardt
 


excuse me... but those things you said science can't explain don't um... exist. so...yeah...of course science can't explain the mythical and false



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join