About the Science vs Religion Debate

[70th Week]

time isnt going to develop something like that if our technology cant.That doesnt make any sense.

[chomerics]

1) Then we agree that the universe has not "always" existed?

I will say this, the universe as WE know it has not always existed. There is certain theory that states we are just a single universt, and there have been infinate universes out there.

One of the astrophysicists I work with says there is a theory out there which states that a big bang can occur spontaneously every 10^21years (I think that was his figure). The universe also will expand into nothing, that much we DO know now. So following this out, our universe could be just a single universe in an infinate number before and after. We do not know the mathematics of what was there beyond the big bang, because currently our level of math does not allow us to determing what happens at a singularity (ie the infinatesmal point of the big bang, or at the center of a black hole). That doesn't mean we won't be able to in the future, just right at this moment in time, we to not have the tools needed to figure this out. . . similar to how Newton needed Calculus to understand F=ma and gravity.

2) Creationism is not bound by scientific exploration. It is bound by faith.

I agree, and that is why I don't think it should be taught in a classroom. There is no scientific exidence which supports creationism, so is should stay out of science. Theology? absolutely fine with me, I have no problem with teaching it is theology, but not science, because of exactly what you said.

I think you miss my point. I have faith that the "universe" we live in was created. No scientist can provide a reasonable theory to suggest another avenue. Science, IMO is the attempt to explain that which has been created.

Science is not a means to an end. Science is simply a way for humans to explain and understand. Just as science has never been able to "prove" creationism(doubtful that many have tried to), science has never been able to disprove it.

Science nad religion have been intertwined throughout history. They are two different sides to the same coin, both trying to understand the bigger picture. Who we are, where we came from and what is the meaning. Science looks to the physical world for the explination of what is around us, and religion turns to the imagination. They both attempt to hammer out the meanings, but in entirely different ways. IMHO, science has exposed the church many many times over the years, so when the church was powerful, they tried to eliminate science. That is why scientific discovery was hampered for almost 1000 years, and the only advancements were of war in nature. IMO, Religion has a lot to hide, because I think they are hiding a lot. Like I said, it is my opinion, but I think I have a solid foundation for what I believe.

I despise the RCC, but not religous people. I read the book Angles and Demons, and I was rooting for the illumaniti :laugh: I don't have contempt for people who believe in religion, but for the fallicy I believe is just a business that preys off of peoples emotions. I know that religion does a lot of good all over this world, but I also think that millions of people have dies simply because one sides imiginary guy is better then the other sides.

So lets agree to the following shall we?

Creationism is a "theory" yet to be explained.

The beginning of our universe are surrounded by "theories" yet to be explained.

I will never believe that creatonism is a theory, because you need facts and observations to have a theory. What you have is religous psudosience who's sole instance is to try to discredit evolution because it shows a glairing hole in the bible. Creatoniam gives no premise, had nothing which can be explained by experimentation, and posses absolutely no positive aspect about is existance at all. The entire reason for creatonism is to try and destroy evolutionism. That is not a theory, not even a premise, it is psudoscience.

If you want to say you THINK that creationism is why we are here, but it is nowhere near a thoery. It isn't even a premise because you can't prove anything about it. It is just religous thought.

Both have a place in the intellectual mind.

I agree that both have a place for SOME people, I am just not one of them. I am to far intertwined in my scientific mind to even try to believe in something like religion (in the Christian sense). If anything, I like Budhism as well as the meaning of Karma. I thnik there could be some life force, or chi surounding everyone, and there is a lot more we need to learn about communication and what our brains are capable of. Not to say others are wrong, it is their own faith and their perrogative, but it is not for me. I need to see tangilbe evidence to understand and believe in something.

[portisizzle]

I am not a teacher but yes that is my big problem on this topic. Some groups are petitoning to get ID taught in schools as a science. In PA its already in practice.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6470259/

From the article......

"Its Georgia counterpart, meanwhile, is fighting a suburban Atlanta district’s decision to include a warning sticker in biology textbooks that says evolution is “a theory, not a fact.”

Now as it relates to education. Evolution is theory and is not fact. So I would expect science teachers to explain to students what that means. It is up to the student to come to the conclusion as to why a tadpole becomes a frog.

As far as teaching creationism in school. I would be very suspicious of what is being taught. I think that it is OK to teach Big Bang in school, but I would not spend two weeks on it. I think an intellectually honest debate like we are having here on Creationism v. Scientific views of the beginning of the universe does have a place in school. Only at the right age, and only as a point of debate and not advising one theory over another. :2cents:

[HOF44]

time isnt going to develop something like that if our technology cant.That doesnt make any sense.

I guess I can't argue with logic and insight like that.

[chomerics]

After I am done reading Carl Sagan "Demon Haunted World" I would be interested in reading. Any suggestions?

Brian Greene has a few books, but I am not that big of a fan of his writing. Michu Kao wrote Hyperspace, and that is more long the lines of Sagan. He relates a lot to flatworld (2-D space) trying to imagine a 3-D universe and he writes fairly wel for laymen. Both are good authors though.

[gchwood]

Schools wouldn't be teaching religion, they aren't talking of Nirvana, the cross, or animal sacrifice. They are teaching another possibility of how the world was formed. If they only teach big bang, doesn't that ellude to it being fact not theory. To present something as a theory you need to offer an alternative. I mean for goodness sakes we have been teaching history from the Bible for decades if not generations, and that never creates a problem. Why? because we don't source the bible we just draw the information and present it. The Bible is the oldest historical manuscript in the world. It gives us a timeline for a crucial part of history. why is it ok there and not in science

[chomerics]

time isnt going to develop something like that if our technology cant.That doesnt make any sense.

Just because it doesn't make sense to YOU does not mean it doesn't make sense. There is many many different reasons why and how our eye operates and how it evolved. You should read more about evolution, because you obviously do not understand much about it if you believe things like this.

[chomerics]

Schools wouldn't be teaching religion, they aren't talking of Nirvana, the cross, or animal sacrifice. They are teaching another possibility of how the world was formed. If they only teach big bang, doesn't that ellude to it being fact not theory. To present something as a theory you need to offer an alternative. I mean for goodness sakes we have been teaching history from the Bible for decades if not generations, and that never creates a problem. Why? because we don't source the bible we just draw the information and present it. The Bible is the oldest historical manuscript in the world. It gives us a timeline for a crucial part of history. why is it ok there and not in science

ID is religous teaching, don't try to muddy the water by saying it is NOT religous.

Here is an exercize, show me a prominant outfit that is pushing ID that is NOT religous in nature. Take your time searching because it may take a while :laugh:

[HOF44]

From the article......

"Its Georgia counterpart, meanwhile, is fighting a suburban Atlanta district’s decision to include a warning sticker in biology textbooks that says evolution is “a theory, not a fact.”

Now as it relates to education. Evolution is theory and is not fact. So I would expect science teachers to explain to students what that means. It is up to the student to come to the conclusion as to why a tadpole becomes a frog.

As far as teaching creationism in school. I would be very suspicious of what is being taught. I think that it is OK to teach Big Bang in school, but I would not spend two weeks on it. I think an intellectually honest debate like we are having here on Creationism v. Scientific views of the beginning of the universe does have a place in school. Only at the right age, and only as a point of debate and not advising one theory over another. :2cents:

portisizzle, now we have come to somewhat of an agreement. While i don't agree point to point with you I beleive we do see somewhat eye to eye on the ID in schools issue.

[cakmoney61]

For me, there is no doubt that there is a God and that the Bible was inspired by Him although written by men. The God of Heaven is its Author. So I wholeheartedly believe what the Bible says. The Bible clearly states that everything that exists was made by God. For me, Science is merely a means of the scholarly trying to discover the workings and even the beginnings of all of these things that God has created. I highlighted some Bible verses on the subject of God's existence, man's attempt to understand creation, as well as man's attempt to discount God.

Ecclesiastes 3:11 - He has made everything beautiful in its time. He has also set eternity in the hearts of men; yet they cannot fathom what God has done from beginning to end.

Ecclesiastes 8:17 - No one can comprehend what goes on under the sun. Despite all his efforts to search it out, man cannot discover its meaning. Even if a wise man claims he knows, he cannot really comprehend it.

1 Corinthians 1:19-21 - For it is written: "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate." Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know Him, God was please through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe.

Romans 1:18-20 - The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--His eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

From God's perspective, to think He doesn't exist is nonsense when you see the sun, the moon, the planets, yourself in the mirror, etc. It's equivalent to you seeing a skyscraper and going around crusading that no one built it. People would find your thinking and proclamation utter foolishness.

I will stop with this, because there is so much more that the Bible says.

Psalms 14:1-2 - The fool says in his heart, "There is no God." They are corrupt, their deeds are vile; there is no one who does good. The Lord looks down from heaven on the sons of men to see if there are any who understand, and who seek God.

[HOF44]

For me, there is no doubt that there is a God and that the Bible was inspired by Him although written by men. The God of Heaven is its Author. So I wholeheartedly believe what the Bible says. The Bible clearly states that everything that exists was made by God. For me, Science is merely a means of the scholarly trying to discover the workings and even the beginnings of all of these things that God has created. I highlighted some Bible verses on the subject of God's existence, man's attempt to understand creation, as well as man's attempt to discount God.

Ecclesiastes 3:11 - He has made everything beautiful in its time. He has also set eternity in the hearts of men; yet they cannot fathom what God has done from beginning to end.

Ecclesiastes 8:17 - No one can comprehend what goes on under the sun. Despite all his efforts to search it out, man cannot discover its meaning. Even if a wise man claims he knows, he cannot really comprehend it.

1 Corinthians 1:19-21 - For it is written: "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate." Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know Him, God was please through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe.

Romans 1:18-20 - The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--His eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

From God's perspective, to think He doesn't exist is nonsense when you see the sun, the moon, the planets, yourself in the mirror, etc. It's equivalent to you seeing a skyscraper and going around crusading that no one built it. People would find your thinking and proclamation utter foolishness.

I will stop with this, because there is so much more that the Bible says.

Psalms 14:1-2 - The fool says in his heart, "There is no God." They are corrupt, their deeds are vile; there is no one who does good. The Lord looks down from heaven on the sons of men to see if there are any who understand, and who seek God.

So do you believe religion should be taught in public schools?

[gchwood]

ID is religous teaching, don't try to muddy the water by saying it is NOT religous.

Here is an exercize, show me a prominant outfit that is pushing ID that is NOT religous in nature. Take your time searching because it may take a while :laugh:

your not going to find an intelligent design group that is not religious that is irrational. My point is that the majority of people are religious, and the majority of the people believe in intelligent design, so teach it, just don't teach one religion, teach it from a universal perspective.

I wish that religious people would get a backbone. Stand up for what you believe in! Creationism was taught in schools until the 60's.

It is NOT the schools job to teach you what to believe in, so they should not allow the teaching of Allah or Jehovah or Budda. Nor should they force one THEORY of how the world began. Especially as they tend to teach it as fact. I know I was in high school and college recently enough to know that they teach evolution and big bang as the begin all end all of the begining

[cakmoney61]

So do you believe religion should be taught in public schools?

No I don't. It should be taught at home and the local church. Neither do I believe evolution in and of itself is wrong. If it's used to teach how things began, that's wrong. But to teach how things evolved is not necessarily wrong. To teach that a man evolved from an ape is nonsense to the Christian, which I am, because it opposes what the Bible says about how man came to be.

Maybe evolution is the wrong word. Maybe schools should teach the way life forms have "adapted" over time instead of evolved. When I think of evolution, the first thing that comes to my mind is the ape-to-man theory, and as I've already said, that's nonsense and shouldn't be taught in schools.

[portisizzle]

One of the astrophysicists I work with says there is a theory out there which states that a big bang can occur spontaneously every 10^21years (I think that was his figure). The universe also will expand into nothing, that much we DO know now. So following this out, our universe could be just a single universe in an infinate number before and after. We do not know the mathematics of what was there beyond the big bang, because currently our level of math does not allow us to determing what happens at a singularity (ie the infinatesmal point of the big bang, or at the center of a black hole). That doesn't mean we won't be able to in the future, just right at this moment in time, we to not have the tools needed to figure this out. . . similar to how Newton needed Calculus to understand F=ma and gravity.

I will never believe that creatonism is a theory, because you need facts and observations to have a theory. What you have is religous psudosience who's sole instance is to try to discredit evolution because it shows a glairing hole in the bible. Creatoniam gives no premise, had nothing which can be explained by experimentation, and posses absolutely no positive aspect about is existance at all. The entire reason for creatonism is to try and destroy evolutionism. That is not a theory, not even a premise, it is psudoscience.

.

Chrome,

I copied two paragraphs from your response. I did so mainly to argue my point that creationism is a theory. Just because you choose not to engage yourself in a purly scientific way, that does not mean that we can not theorize that the universe was created. Maybe Creationist have yet to develop the proper science to explain their theory as well.

I will say this to your friend who says there is a theory of multiple universes. Does he believe in the concept of time? Because everything happens over time. For the sake of argument I will accept your friends theory. So now that I have accepted it, might I ask what happened before all these "10 dimensions" were created? I mean we are here now. What happened one hundred trillion googleplexes ago. So far in our 10 universes past that the "Big Bang" happened just five seconds ago in relative terms?

I am saying to you Chrome, when you get past the concept of trying to explain this 10 universe deal, I want to know what was going on one hundred trillon googleplexes before that first singularity existed. You can only use this to go back so far before you must accept the conclusion that there must be a beginning. And before that beginning there was nothing, not even the vast vacuum of space.

That is the conclusion that requires the answer we are striving for. And it is the one answer that we will never get with scientific thought.

I remember Tarhog speaking of an ant trying to fathom the distance to the United States while he is standing on the beach in Africa. Point is, that ant will never understand the sheer complexity of that thought. We as humans are in the same place with respect to our universe. No better off than the ant standing on the beach in Africa pondering how far it is to get to the United States.

Yet I listen to you and your friend trying to assimilate in some scientific way an understanding of the impossible. You are very industrious in your quest to understand, and that is admirable. However, an ant is also industrious being able to pick up and move items much heavier that they are to help build their homes. No one is questioning your determination nor the determination of an ant.

What is being questioned is your attempt to explain the unexplainable. To the objective ear, you sound like the ant on the African beach pondering something that it can not possibly concieve in its mind.

I am writing this not to insult you, just as I am sure you do not mean to insult me and my thoughts on Creationism.

[HOF44]

Chrome,

I copied two paragraphs from your response. I did so mainly to argue my point that creationism is a theory. Just because you choose not to engage yourself in a purly scientific way, that does not mean that we can not theorize that the universe was created. Maybe Creationist have yet to develop the proper science to explain their theory as well.

I will say this to your friend who says there is a theory of multiple universes. Does he believe in the concept of time? Because everything happens over time. For the sake of argument I will accept your friends theory. So now that I have accepted it, might I ask what happened before all these "10 dimensions" were created? I mean we are here now. What happened one hundred trillion googleplexes ago. So far in our 10 universes past that the "Big Bang" happened just five seconds ago in relative terms?

I am saying to you Chrome, when you get past the concept of trying to explain this 10 universe deal, I want to know what was going on one hundred trillon googleplexes before that first singularity existed. You can only use this to go back so far before you must accept the conclusion that there must be a beginning. And before that beginning there was nothing, not even the vast vacuum of space.

That is the conclusion that requires the answer we are striving for. And it is the one answer that we will never get with scientific thought.

I remember Tarhog speaking of an ant trying to fathom the distance to the United States while he is standing on the beach in Africa. Point is, that ant will never understand the sheer complexity of that thought. We as humans are in the same place with respect to our universe. No better off than the ant standing on the beach in Africa pondering how far it is to get to the United States.

Yet I listen to you and your friend trying to assimilate in some scientific way an understanding of the impossible. You are very industrious in your quest to understand, and that is admirable. However, an ant is also industrious being able to pick up and move items much heavier that they are to help build their homes. No one is questioning your determination nor the determination of an ant.

What is being questioned is your attempt to explain the unexplainable. To the objective ear, you sound like the ant on the African beach pondering something that it can not possibly concieve in its mind.

The thing is sooooo much in history has been unexplainable. But through generations of applying scientific methods it has been understood.

For instance flight of birds was a mircale of god. Now we know that due to the shape of the wing a low pressure area is created above the wing creating lift.

I believe if the human race survives long enough many things we attribute to god now will be explained by man, maybe even the origin of the universe.

[70th Week]

chomerics,although i probably dont know as much about eye evolution as you do,what i do know is God said in genesis that he spoke the world into existence and that is all i need to know.

[portisizzle]

The thing is sooooo much in history has been unexplainable. But through generations of applying scientific methods it has been understood.

For instance flight of birds was a mircale of god. Now we know that due to the shape of the wing a low pressure area is created above the wing creating lift.

I believe if the human race survives long enough many things we attribute to god now will be explained by man, maybe even the origin of the universe.

There is no doubt that if we live long enough the human race will be able to explain everything that we can conceive. When we reach that point we will know that all these things that we have explained will be attributable to a creator.

How do I know this? Because it is scientifically impossible for something to be created from nothing. Science is presented with the ultimate question for which it will not have the ability to fathom the final answer. And make no mistake, this question is the pivotal question in science. It is why we look into the heavens. It is why Chrome does what he does, to understand.

it is that question that will break scientific thought on the subject. I also know this because no scientist has a factual and observable theory that stands up to the concept of infinity. Again, because infinity is scientifically impossible. Infinity is the dead end to science. Anyone want to take some leaps with me now??

[70th Week]

our concept is all about time,thats why we cant understand time and how God got here.But that is not God's way for as he said of man,"one day to God is as a thousand to man and a thousand as one day".just take the time to think about that.

[NavyDave]

I'm not going to junp in this time.

All I have to say is that I'm fortunate that ND jr is going to private schools of my choice and its too bad that all needy parents cant use vouchers so they can select school that mirror their choices

[gchwood]

The thing is sooooo much in history has been unexplainable. But through generations of applying scientific methods it has been understood.

For instance flight of birds was a mircale of god. Now we know that due to the shape of the wing a low pressure area is created above the wing creating lift.

I believe if the human race survives long enough many things we attribute to god now will be explained by man, maybe even the origin of the universe.

So it is unreasonable to beleive that God designed the bird that way? that God created the areas of low pressure, the updrafts, and winds?

even if man lives long enough to explain the origin of the universe or the things we attribute to God. Who says that future man won't say wow God is amazing or even that God still created and designed everything, maybe even the big bang.

I ask you "What is more irrational: someone who beleives in a god he can't see or the person that is offended by the god he doesn't beleive in?"

[jpillian]

I'm not going to junp in this time.

All I have to say is that I'm fortunate that ND jr is going to private schools of my choice and its too bad that all needy parents cant use vouchers so they can select school that mirror their choices

Amen to that!

[HOF44]

our concept is all about time,thats why we cant understand time and how God got here.But that is not God's way for as he said of man,"one day to God is as a thousand to man and a thousand as one day".just take the time to think about that.

That just means god was traveling near the speed of light relative to man. :)

[portisizzle]

I ask you "What is more irrational: someone who beleives in a god he can't see or the person that is offended by the god he doesn't beleive in?"

The answer is neither is irrational. The fact is science has the ability to explain many things about our universe. Science is a valuable and noble profession.

Religion and Creationism also explains many things about our universe. It is also a noble and valuable profession.

Both of these professions can and do exist in a cooperative way. It is a fact though that many of each profession would deny the other their findings for fear of what those findings might mean to their life's work. There is plenty of history of Religion beating down the proponents of critical and scientific thought. Just as there is in recent history Science beating down the proponents of creation and faith. That, my friend is what is irrational.

[gchwood]

why does either one have to beat the other one down? Why can't they be taught together, one as a scientific theory the other as popular thought?

[gchwood]

btw being offended by something you don't beleive in is not only irrational but insane. beleiving in a god you can't see is called faith