Archive

Can Science and Religion co exist?

  • BoatShoes
    jmog;1599914 wrote:100% of that post was your opinion with zero facts. Let's list BS's opinions:
    1. He publishes garbage.
    2. His published research is contravened by the entirety of scientific knowledge that has been compiled by 99% of other people with PhDs.
    3. His ideas are terrible.
    4. His ideas have been easily refuted.
    5. He is a pseudo-scientist.
    6. His ideas have been rejected his entire life.
    Opinions that correspond with reality as opposed to the infantile fantasies of a young earth creationist who thinks Adam and Eve played with Dinosaurs.
  • BoatShoes
    jmog;1599915 wrote:BS did a 5 second google search, posted the first thing that came up and immediately he is an expert at how Dr. Gentry has been a kook his whole life and has always had his kook ideas immediately refuted by 99% of PhD scientists out there.

    His logical failure jumps couldn't be funnier.

    I do like your last statement however...Sleeper, BS, and Tom Baillieul are not peer reviewed, but this "kook" Gentry is...
    Umm...we have had these debates before dontcha know....

    We get it....none of the thousands of peer reviewed articles in support of evolution with common descent or the big bang will persuade you...but one kook's ideas about Radiohalos was enough to get you to give up your sincere, deeply held belief in evolution that you had in college.
  • jmog
    BoatShoes;1599922 wrote:Umm...we have had these debates before dontcha know....

    We get it....none of the thousands of peer reviewed articles in support of evolution with common descent or the big bang will persuade you...but one kook's ideas about Radiohalos was enough to get you to give up your sincere, deeply held belief in evolution that you had in college.
    Who said I haven't read/found credible/etc peer reviewed articles in support of common descent? Once again, your bias is quite obvious with the "one kook's ideas". Especially when I implicitly stated IF his idea was correct, and that IT was interesting. I NEVER said I dove head long into his theory and believe it is 100% fact and THAT is why I gave up my "sincere, deeply held belief in evolution". Those are your words, not mine.

    You can't possibly be this bad at logical arguments. I state one man's research is interesting and it could cause of problem with evolution IF it was "real" or true.

    You make the logical leap to "well, jmog believes this guy 100% and this guy is the reason he stopped believing in evolution, jmog just ignores all other research".

    You can't be serious, really..but we all know, I am a liar according to you so I am probably lying that I ONLY said his work was interesting and could cause a problem too...oh wait, nevermind, I could quote that one if you want me to.
  • jmog
    I guess when you can't win the argument with logical arguments and actual scientific knowledge you resort to calling those on the other side kooks, liars, idiots, morons, foolish, etc.

    Look at which side of this debate has done just that in this thread.

    I expect sleeper to not have the ability to have a rational/logical discussion about this type of topic because that is his "schtick", but some of the others like Boatshoes resorting to the ad hominem and character attacks are rather surprising.
  • fish82
    BoatShoes;1599919 wrote:There are articles that have bothered to refute his ideas in peer reviewed journals as well but you already knew that.
    Perhaps there are.

    You could always take more than a 5 second Google search and actually post some, instead of some retired geologist's blog page. I know that sounds like work and stuff, tho. :laugh:

    queencitybuckeye;1599918 wrote:In effect, that's what his peers say. In more detail they say it's junk science meant to "prove" a preconceived idea.
    Some do...some don't. Let's not act like that's the consensus opinion. ;)

    queencitybuckeye;1599918 wrote:Peer-reviewed != credible.
    You should probably give the heads up to the worldwide scientific community about this...they seem to put a pretty large amount of stock in it. :huh:
  • queencitybuckeye
    fish82;1599932 wrote:
    Some do...some don't. Let's not act like that's the consensus opinion. ;)
    Consensus, no. Overwhelming majority opinion, yes.



    You should probably give the heads up to the worldwide scientific community about this...they seem to put a pretty large amount of stock in it. :huh:
    No need, they already know the difference. That something is peer-reviewed doesn't mean what you appear to believe it means. Something can be peer-reviewed and judged by those peers to be garbage. Which is basically the case here.
  • fish82
    queencitybuckeye;1599941 wrote:Consensus, no. Overwhelming majority opinion, yes.
    No...but at least you're moving in the right direction.

    queencitybuckeye;1599941 wrote:No need, they already know the difference. That something is peer-reviewed doesn't mean what you appear to believe it means. Something can be peer-reviewed and judged by those peers to be garbage. Which is basically the case here.
    LOL. I'm aware of what it means.

    I found two published peer-reviewed rebuttals to Gentry's work, and they weren't even in direct response to the experiment...merely competing articles were the author found another study and said "see, this refutes Gentry."

    If there are more than two...feel free to link them up and I'll give them a look-see. Otherwise, I'll have to remain skeptical on your "overwhelming majority" statement.
  • Devils Advocate
  • HitsRus
    The biggest difference for the youth of today is access to information.
    Most sadly, because of the internet, youth (or anybody for that matter) has the fastest access to some of the biggest bullshit, half truths and non truths in human history.
  • sleeper
    HitsRus;1600729 wrote:Most sadly, because of the internet, youth (or anybody for that matter) has the fastest access to some of the biggest bullshit, half truths and non truths in human history.
    No, they had that before the internet and that was called the bible and childhood indoctrination. Information is absolutely undermining the credibility of any institution that has to rely on fear and ignorance to ever register on the radar. Remember, there's nothing more bullshit than a group that derides science for not having all the answers but yet seems to have all the answers itself without proving even a drop of it.
  • jmog
    sleeper;1600810 wrote:No, they had that before the internet and that was called the bible and childhood indoctrination. Information is absolutely undermining the credibility of any institution that has to rely on fear and ignorance to ever register on the radar. Remember, there's nothing more bullshit than a group that derides science for not having all the answers but yet seems to have all the answers itself without proving even a drop of it.
    Yup, the internet is REALLY undermining people's belief in creationism...

    http://www.gallup.com/poll/155003/hold-creationist-view-human-origins.aspx

    46% of American's believe that God created humans less than 10,000 years ago, and that number hasn't really changed (slightly higher) since 1982. If you were correct, then one would expect since the internet got "big" around 2000/2001 when over 50% of households started having the internet in there home, that this statistics would fall off the map. In fact, it has not.

    I am sorry that facts don't support your opinion once again.

    Where the completely cell to human without any supreme being's help numbers have gone up (10% to about 15%) they have just "taken" the numbers from those that already believed in evolution but believed God helped it along. They have NOT taken any believers from the "young earth" crowd...percentage wise.
  • sleeper
    jmog;1600823 wrote:Yup, the internet is REALLY undermining people's belief in creationism...

    http://www.gallup.com/poll/155003/hold-creationist-view-human-origins.aspx

    46% of American's believe that God created humans less than 10,000 years ago, and that number hasn't really changed (slightly higher) since 1982. If you were correct, then one would expect since the internet got "big" around 2000/2001 when over 50% of households started having the internet in there home, that this statistics would fall off the map. In fact, it has not.

    I am sorry that facts don't support your opinion once again.

    Where the completely cell to human without any supreme being's help numbers have gone up (10% to about 15%) they have just "taken" the numbers from those that already believed in evolution but believed God helped it along. They have NOT taken any believers from the "young earth" crowd...percentage wise.
    So what you're saying is 46% of Americans are either balls deep delusional or downright moronic. Nice!
  • HitsRus
    Remember, there's nothing more bullshit than a group that derides science for not having all the answers but yet seems to have all the answers itself without proving even a drop of it.
    and what group is that? Be specific before painting with a broad brush. Most certainly not the Catholics as I have already pointed out...I'd be safe to include Buddhists also. Scientists are free to research and come to their own conclusions as science can only reveal what we as humans can understand.

    Very simple concept here...Science is bound by laws of this universe. Anything outside of it cannot be known fully known. Creation, or the formation of this universe by whatever form, is clearly outside the realm of this universe. We can of course,eventually nail down whether evolution, creationism, or some other method is responsible for life formation on this planet,( in reality it doesn't matter anyway) but we cannot ascertain whether there was or is some divine force or purpose behind it.

    You will not, cannot, EVER scientifically prove anything of this nature one way or another.
    You can believe, thru revelation that we a have a place and purpose in this creation, or you can believe that out of nothingness you and your universe just suddenly appeared. Either way it is just a matter of faith or lack thereof.

    Good luck in your own personal quest. Do every one a favor and allow them the same luxury.
  • fish82
    sleeper;1600844 wrote:So what you're saying is 46% of Americans are either balls deep delusional or downright moronic. Nice!
    No, you're saying that. :huh:

    He's saying that you've stepped on your dick again by pulling "facts" out of your azz without knowing what the hell you're talking about.
  • jmog
    sleeper;1600844 wrote:So what you're saying is 46% of Americans are either balls deep delusional or downright moronic. Nice!
    No, I'm proving once again that you are full of crap and just make stuff up as you go along.
  • dlazz
    jmog;1600885 wrote: just make stuff up as you go along.
    Like religion?
  • jmog
    dlazz;1600887 wrote:Like religion?
    like climate science? like evolutionary biology?

    I can play that game too, doesn't make me or you right.
  • Heretic
    This thread is a great collection of arguing between two entries in Deadspin's Bitchy Bracket's Politico Commenter Regional.

    1. Christian Conservatives
    Constantly under siege. You people don't know oppression until you're the member of the ruling majority and have permanent gerrymandered footholds in a majority of states. THE GAYS WON'T STOP PUSHING THEIR GAY AGENDA DOWN MY THROAT! They're opening my mouth and putting their gay penis in there and ejaculating hot talking points right down into my belly! The town hall won't put on a Nativity display because atheists are assholes! Hollywood is run by Jews! Radical Islamists are coming to bomb me ... sometime!
    And of course the worst part is that, as a historically dominant segment of society, you're not allowed to complain. Talk about anti-Christian discrimination and you just get laughed at. But it's real! Why are you laughing? STOP LAUGHING. THIS IS IMPORTANT.

    vs.


    7. Dawkins-style hardcore atheists
    Prove to me that God exists. Go on! Prove it! You can't. You're nothing more than a fucking lemming who bases his ethics on some old fairy tale. I laugh at your naiveté. You will die cold and alone and falling into an endless black void and I'll finally be proven right, which is the most important thing! I bet you think A-Rod is a choke artist, too.
  • cruiser_96
    Spontaneous generation is real? Oh. Tell me more about delusion.
  • Devils Advocate
    Christ did with fihes and loaves ( sort of ) and the whole wter to wine thing. They would have you believe that only god can spontaineously create anything. Including itself.
  • cruiser_96
    God/Christ/Someone/Something creating something from nothing would show great power. Not exactly the same type of spontaneous generation an atheistic universe is offering.

    God does not spontaneously generate (to become what He is), for He would be considered outside the realm of space, time, and matter. (See aseity.)
  • gut
    If a literal interpretation of the bible is so ignorant/ridiculous (and it is), then why do atheists take a literal interpretation of the bible to attack religion?
  • HitsRus
    ^^^because that is the essence of their argument. If they can defeat the anthropromorhic symbolism used to convey a message to primitive people, they win!...at least in their own minds.

    /fail
  • gut
    HitsRus;1601126 wrote:...used to convey a message to primitive people, they win!...at least in their own minds.
    I actually deleted a similar thought from my post.

    If you want to refute religion/bible with science, then you have to attack ALL analogical and metaphorical interpretations of the scripture. Because, as you said, the stories/teachings were severely limited by the cognitive ability of the audience at the time....to say nothing of those stories being passed down orally for generations before being written.


    reps for using anthropromorhic...that was not in my vocabulary
  • isadore
    gosh a ruddies
    fundamentalists are moronic as are anyone who defends them.
    atheists are soulless.