Evolution isn't real and the world is flat

[Roofus]

[Specially Cork]

Debates like this always amuse me. Religion and Science do not belong together. Science replaces religion, it does not buddy up with it. If you try and link them together you end up with a big philosphical mess.

[JellyWarrior]

So now they're saying "god created the basics and let it take it's course".
If god was there in the beginning then Whoopi Goldberg (and like minded people) worship an intergalactic explosion, something that never had a consciousness and doesn't exist any more.


Courtesy of SomethingAwful.com

[Egotistical EvilN]

So now they're saying "god created the basics and let it take it's course".
If god was there in the beginning then Whoopi Goldberg (and like minded people) worship an intergalactic explosion, something that never had a consciousness and doesn't exist any more.

That statement made no sense and was completely ignorant. The most scientific thing that could ever be proven about God until is that he both exists outside of our dimension, and can influence our dimension. Ever heard of string theory?

[Zealous zerotype]

What you stated above says certain relgions can't exist, such as Daoist(sp?) basically they believe god created the world and doesn't change anything about it, just that he created it and everything else can be explained by science.

[Roofus]

So now they're saying "god created the basics and let it take it's course".
If god was there in the beginning then Whoopi Goldberg (and like minded people) worship an intergalactic explosion, something that never had a consciousness and doesn't exist any more.

That statement made no sense and was completely ignorant. The most scientific thing that could ever be proven about God until is that he both exists outside of our dimension, and can influence our dimension. Ever heard of string theory?

Yes, it's one of many attempts to unify gravity and quantum physics; The other three forces (electromagnetism and the strong and weak nuclear forces) work pretty well on a small scale, but gravity doesn't come as easily. It's the main sticking point on why they haven't been able to come up with a workable "theory of everything."

The main question is, did you know anything about string theory beyond the words "string" and "theory?"

[Ex-Cyber]

So now they're saying "god created the basics and let it take it's course".

It's not a new idea; it's called deism, and it dates back to the Enlightenment.

What you stated above says certain relgions can't exist, such as Daoist(sp?) basically they believe god created the world and doesn't change anything about it, just that he created it and everything else can be explained by science.

Taoism doesn't really have a notion of a creator deity in the conventional sense. They basically believe that creation stems from a way rather than an entity.

[JellyWarrior]

So now they're saying "god created the basics and let it take it's course".
If god was there in the beginning then Whoopi Goldberg (and like minded people) worship an intergalactic explosion, something that never had a consciousness and doesn't exist any more.

That statement made no sense and was completely ignorant. The most scientific thing that could ever be proven about God until is that he both exists outside of our dimension, and can influence our dimension. Ever heard of string theory?

The latest string theory explanation of the big bang says that universe resulted from a reaction produced when 2 branes collided.
Perhaps god is a brane and it decided to give the brane that we exist in a little kiss?
String theory does not suggest that there is an outside consciousness controlling things, but if a consciousness exists then after it was PROVEN then it would be accepted as a fact because that's what science does. String theory it's an attempt to make sense of quantum physics, something which seems to make no sense.

I think what I said makes perfect sense, it's an example that you can't mix science and religion. Science is the pursuit of truth, investigation, experimentation, every statement and theory is challenged again and again.

Religion is about believing in something, you don't need proof, you just have faith that it exists. If somebody says otherwise they're burned on a steak, accused of having daemons, killed or in many many cases outright war has broken out.

Science thrives on challenging theories, religion forbids it, so they're completely incompatible at the most fundamental level.

I am not saying that there are no higher beings on other dimensional planes, but if there are, then the first thing scientists would do is try and understand these beings, not sacrifice their first born son to them.

Goldberg and other people who believe that god created the big bang and let evolution run it's course are atheists in denial. I say that because it seems that they're willing to re-evaluate their beliefs in the light of new evidence. That's what science does, not what religion does.

[curt_grymala]

So now they're saying "god created the basics and let it take it's course".
If god was there in the beginning then Whoopi Goldberg (and like minded people) worship an intergalactic explosion, something that never had a consciousness and doesn't exist any more.

That statement made no sense and was completely ignorant. The most scientific thing that could ever be proven about God until is that he both exists outside of our dimension, and can influence our dimension. Ever heard of string theory?

The latest string theory explanation of the big bang says that universe resulted from a reaction produced when 2 branes collided.
Perhaps god is a brane and it decided to give the brane that we exist in a little kiss?
String theory does not suggest that there is an outside consciousness controlling things, but if a consciousness exists then after it was PROVEN then it would be accepted as a fact because that's what science does. String theory it's an attempt to make sense of quantum physics, something which seems to make no sense.

I think what I said makes perfect sense, it's an example that you can't mix science and religion. Science is the pursuit of truth, investigation, experimentation, every statement and theory is challenged again and again.

Religion is about believing in something, you don't need proof, you just have faith that it exists. If somebody says otherwise they're burned on a steak, accused of having daemons, killed or in many many cases outright war has broken out.

Science thrives on challenging theories, religion forbids it, so they're completely incompatible at the most fundamental level.

I am not saying that there are no higher beings on other dimensional planes, but if there are, then the first thing scientists would do is try and understand these beings, not sacrifice their first born son to them.

Goldberg and other people who believe that god created the big bang and let evolution run it's course are atheists in denial. I say that because it seems that they're willing to re-evaluate their beliefs in the light of new evidence. That's what science does, not what religion does.

Seriously, do you have a spell-checker?

Regardless, you are stereotyping. You have lumped all religions in together and imposed the beliefs of a handful of them onto all of them. There are quite a few denominations of Christianity that encourage you to question everything, to challenge your own faith and to educate yourself. A lot of the world's other religions encourage the same thing.

In addition, you are ignoring the fact that quite a few of the world's most prominent scientists (including Stephen Hawking and, by most accounts, Darwin himself) are religious. Most scientists in the world understand that there are things in the world that will never be explained, and that you have to have faith and a belief in something bigger than yourself in order to even begin to understand those things.

Finally, you seem to be assuming that everything in science is absolute and has been proven. Many of the highly prominent scientific doctrines have never been proven. You have the theory of evolution, the theory of relativity, the string theory, etc. Notice that none of those are laws.

[Egotistical EvilN]

I think what I said makes perfect sense, it's an example that you can't mix science and religion. Science is the pursuit of truth, investigation, experimentation, every statement and theory is challenged again and again.

Religion is about believing in something, you don't need proof, you just have faith that it exists. If somebody says otherwise they're burned on a steak, accused of having daemons, killed or in many many cases outright war has broken out.

Science thrives on challenging theories, religion forbids it, so they're completely incompatible at the most fundamental level.

Goldberg and other people who believe that god created the big bang and let evolution run it's course are atheists in denial. I say that because it seems that they're willing to re-evaluate their beliefs in the light of new evidence. That's what science does, not what religion does.

No.

Religions constantly evolve and changes into new sects. Heard of the 95 theses, gnosticism, the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Gospel of Judas, or Documentary Hypothesis? Heck, look at The Sworn Book of Honorius, which dates back to the 14th or 15th centuries. It's a catholicism based book that involves literal magic and invoking demons and angels.

[Ex-Cyber]

Seriously, do you have a spell-checker?

The only error I saw was "steak", which a spell-checker would miss anyway because it's not merely a spelling error. As for "brane", my spell checker flags it despite it being correct (you can't expect every dictionary to include theoretical physics jargon).

Many of the highly prominent scientific doctrines have never been proven. You have the theory of evolution, the theory of relativity, the string theory, etc.

If you want to talk about proof in the formal logic sense, then science has proven nothing. On the other hand, it is also called proof when something is supported by evidence beyond reasonable doubt. Science has done plenty of that.

Notice that none of those are laws.

That's because a law describes a specific relationship under certain conditions, while a theory is a more general framework. The distinction isn't based on the quantity or quality of evidence; theories are not proposed laws, nor do they become laws once some threshold of "proof" is surpassed.

[JellyWarrior]

The main question is, did you know anything about string theory beyond the words "string" and "theory?"

Great point you make there.

Seriously, do you have a spell-checker?

Regardless, you are stereotyping. You have lumped all religions in together and imposed the beliefs of a handful of them onto all of them. There are quite a few denominations of Christianity that encourage you to question everything, to challenge your own faith and to educate yourself. A lot of the world's other religions encourage the same thing.

In addition, you are ignoring the fact that quite a few of the world's most prominent scientists (including Stephen Hawking and, by most accounts, Darwin himself) are religious. Most scientists in the world understand that there are things in the world that will never be explained, and that you have to have faith and a belief in something bigger than yourself in order to even begin to understand those things.

Finally, you seem to be assuming that everything in science is absolute and has been proven. Many of the highly prominent scientific doctrines have never been proven. You have the theory of evolution, the theory of relativity, the string theory, etc. Notice that none of those are laws.

Those "theories" are not religions, yes they are unproven but they all have very strong and compelling evidence to back them up. Darwin didn't just say "I believe that things evolved" and left it at that. There has been painstaking research and evidence produced to back him up, where is the evidence to back up the belief that God just created that Lion exactly as it is?
That evidence is nowhere is it? It's a belief, which in turn is religion, not science.

Also, there might be religions that encourage you to challenge your faith, etc, but after you've "challenged your faith" but what's the purpose of challenging your faith? Is it to make your faith stronger and further validate the religion or is it to gain a scientific understanding of reality and the way that things work?

No.

Religions constantly evolve and changes into new sects. Heard of the 95 theses, gnosticism, the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Gospel of Judas, or Documentary Hypothesis? Heck, look at The Sworn Book of Honorius, which dates back to the 14th or 15th centuries. It's a catholicism based book that involves literal magic and invoking demons and angels.

Ok, you've quoted a bunch of examples of people having faith in things, like higher beings, etc.
How does that invalidate my statement?
Which one of those examples is based completely on fact and well tested theories?

Frankly, I don't care about how much religion has changed over the years. I don't care if church songs gets replaced with death metal versions, the church organ becomes an electric guitar and I don't care if one set of beliefs are swapped for another set of beliefs because be believe that betrayer A was actually a good guy. This is not in the slightest bit related to what I am talking about. I am saying that you can't mix religion with science, it's as simple as that.

Changing your beliefs doesn't make religion more scientific.

Believing that god created the big bang and everything scientifically happened from that point onwards is still a religion because of the God part of the theory. There is no evidence what so ever to say that god started the big bang in order to create the universe. Therefore saying "I believe God created the big bang" just places God next to a scientific theory rather than looking for what really caused the big bang.

If it is proven that a conscious being named "Warren" who one day thought it would be really cool to create a universe, then "Warren" is God, Warren is proven to exist, therefore Warren is a fact and not a belief any more. What happens next? Do we slot God in before Warren and say that God created Warren?

Also about scientists having religious beliefs. Famous scientists might have religious beliefs, but just because a famous scientist might have religious beliefs doesn't automatically make that scientist's religious beliefs come true. Their religious beliefs will always remain a belief until that person produces compelling and reliable real evidence to say that their belief is correct. That evidence needs to be rigorously tested. Likewise it doesn't mean that a religious person can't make a contribution to the scientific community.

Anyhow I've spent too long on this post.
Just one last thing, I have nothing against people believing in things, I do have a problem with people injecting incompatible things into science.

[Egotistical EvilN]

Science in a nutshell:
# 1. Observe some aspect of the universe.
# 2. Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is consistent with what you have observed.
# 3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions.
# 4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and modify the hypothesis in the light of your results.
# 5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between theory and experiment and/or observation.

Which is exactly what religion has always been doing. The best possible example of this is the Zohar.

[Roofus]

Finally, you seem to be assuming that everything in science is absolute and has been proven. Many of the highly prominent scientific doctrines have never been proven. You have the theory of evolution, the theory of relativity, the string theory, etc. Notice that none of those are laws.

"Theory" as science uses the term is as close to proof as science can get. Before the theory stage, you have a "hypothesis." A lot of these are "Hey, wouldn't it be cool if..." or "Hey, I bet that..." things. You then perform an experiment (or many.) If your experiments seem to confirm your hypothesis, you submit it for peer review and see if others can duplicate your findings. If they can, then your hypothesis becomes a theory.

This is done with evolution by studying the fossil record and more recently, the DNA of animals. For humans, it could start with the hypothesis "Gee, we sure look a lot like apes. Hey, I bet that we're related!" You could then study human skeletons, compare them to fossils of extinct apes, Neanderthals, etc. Then you compare human DNA to other apes and discover that human DNA and the DNA of a particular species of ape that you know as Pan troglodytes are over 98% identical. Analysis of other ape species shows that gorillas are about 97% identical and Orangutans are less close, but still in the high 90s. All this proves is that humans and apes are related. All the theory of evolution does is attempt to provide an explanation of just how humans and apes came to be related. Specifically in this case, through a now extinct ancestor species that over millions of years gave rise to modern orangutans, gorillas, chimpanzees and eventually, humans.

[JellyWarrior]

Science in a nutshell:
# 1. Observe some aspect of the universe.
# 2. Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is consistent with what you have observed.
# 3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions.
# 4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and modify the hypothesis in the light of your results.
# 5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between theory and experiment and/or observation.

Which is exactly what religion has always been doing. The best possible example of this is the Zohar.

You're really not making any sense here, I suggest you go and find out exactly what science and religion is before you say anything else.

Tell me where they've done a God test? Where is the evidence? Where are the tests documented? Who were the people who did the God test? How many times has God been documented?

Science does not see something like lightning and say "God did it", science says "wow there is something amazing going on here" and sets out to try and understand and explain the phenomenon. Yes there are usually different theories and explanations of the phenomenon but after investigation we always end up with one law which is "the way it works".

Lets take Christianity as an example, how many different Christian sects exist?
Are there becoming more or less? And where is the compelling evidence that god exists?

Religion and science are not the same.

[Lartrak]

I think the more important thing to note here is that one of the host's of the View said if her kid asked her if the world is flat, she'd say yes. The stupidity of this baffles me. What does she think happens when you circumnavigate the globe? A teleporter just slaps you on the other side, ala Asteroids? Apparently, even the most minute amount of theoretical thinking is too complex for her.

So let's all gather round and mock her stupidity, rather than arguing about stuff.

[|darc|]

Tell me where they've done a God test? Where is the evidence? Where are the tests documented? Who were the people who did the God test? How many times has God been documented?

A bunch of priests read the Bible. A lot. And it was all in there. QED.

[JellyWarrior]

Tell me where they've done a God test? Where is the evidence? Where are the tests documented? Who were the people who did the God test? How many times has God been documented?

A bunch of priests read the Bible. A lot. And it was all in there. QED.

Ok then, I am now a believer

[Roofus]

Tell me where they've done a God test? Where is the evidence? Where are the tests documented? Who were the people who did the God test? How many times has God been documented?

A bunch of priests read the Bible. A lot. And it was all in there. QED.

Which version?

[Zealous zerotype]

It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal god and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious, then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.
~ Albert Einstein


Just to go on with what he actually believed. Also, I don't hate others for believing god or other things I have my own personal beliefs and I rarely talk about them much less preach about them. I just think people need to find their own beliefs in life and I happen to follow the science world a lot. BTW, if you havn't read up on string theory it is really intresting and all of the work being put into it is really astonishing.