Can Science and Religion co exist?

• pmoney25

  

  cruiser_96;1602151 wrote:No, good sir. Our existence and everything that is here is evidence of something outside of us placing us here. Science has proven that spontaneous generation has not, does, and will not occur. So, the burden of proof is on you. ...how (or why) something rather than nothing?
  
  I have already answered the "Who created god and why". God exists outside of the time realm we are regulated to. See Aseity. This also answers why God can exist but everything can't exist from eternity past. It's the nature of time. It (time) had a beginning. If time always existed, we would never get to this point. (Try counting from negative infinity - you'll never get to the number 42.) Secondarily, time and space are not causal agents. Neither is chance for that matter. Give time all the chances in the world, and chance all the time in the world, and give both all the space it needs, but nothing will always result in nothing.
  
  This is my issue with the idea of an atheistic universe. These things are impossible and what we are left with in an atheistic universe.

  You do realize you are saying "well you have no proof so you are wrong but I cant really prove my proof either but Im right."
  
  If you claim God created the universe the burden of proof will always be on you. If God is the beginning, that's where the proof needs to be.
  
  Also to speak in absolutes about Science never being able to prove creation is a bit close minded and simple. You have no idea what we will know hundreds or thousands of years from now.
• cruiser_96

  

  The fact that something is here is the proof in light of the fact that nothing cannot turn into something. Why is this so hard to understand?
• Rotinaj

  

  LOLOLOLOLOLOL
• pmoney25

  

  cruiser_96;1602156 wrote:The fact that something is here is the proof in light of the fact that nothing cannot turn into something. Why is this so hard to understand?

  So no proof now equals no proof ever. Gotcha. I dont disagree about God. I just dont see why not God could have created and then lets us figure it out. Apparently you do.
• cruiser_96

  

  My main point deals with there being two options concerning the universe: atheistic or theistic. If atheistic, then numerous problems (in my mind) arise - spontaneous generation, the nature of time, non-life to life, etc. Again, the fact that I am/we are here is in direct contradiction to this (an atheistic universe) scenario.
• jmog

  sleeper;1602129 wrote:And you still haven't answered my question about where in the bible does it talk about Dinosaurs becoming extinct?

  
  Where does it talk about mammoth's becoming extinct? Where does it talk about dogs being created? Where does it say that Alexander the Great was born? Where does it say the that Confucius was born?
  
  Just because every historical fact that has ever happened isn't listed in the Bible doesn't negate the Bible. If your logic held true then every single history book ever written is wrong because it doesn't include EVERYTHING that ever happened.
  
  And you say you use logic and reason? You really messed up on that one.
• BoatShoes

  jmog;1601982 wrote:You have been pretentious at best, you know it, I know it, everyone who has read this thread knows it. Stop pretending.
  
  If that's what you think straw man fallacy is, I suggest you look up the defintion.
  
  If there had been bones/fossils of a humanoid that looked just like the described Medusa, you would care.
  
  If there were many bones/fossils of "ancient aliens" to match said cavemen drawings, then you would have a point. Here's the main difference. We have 1000s of fossils of dinosaurs that look just like the ancient civilization artifacts' pictorials of said animals. If we did not have said bones/fossils then you could compare such things to "ancient aliens". Until then it is once again another strawman fallacy.
  
  
  
  So we should "shun" those who look at present data/observations, apply assumptions, and come up with a hypothesis about how the world came to be? Sounds just like what evolutionary biologists do to me. Should we shun them too? Or just those you don't happen to agree with?

  1. Jmog, I am not acting pretentious. My opinion on these matters is not special. I am acting like a normal person should treat beliefs that have been thoroughly refuted for hundreds of years and are based on a deeply emotional investment in mythology.
  
  2. It is only a strawman if I'm knocking down a weaker argument than what you're presenting. In reality, you're trying to turn a straw man into an argument that is worth discussing when it is not.
  
  3. And Jmog we know that those fossils are millions of years old! LOL. There were no dinosaurs walking around with humans!
  
  4. You are wrong about dinosaur fossils not being discovered until the 1800's. Civilizations have been discovering dinosaur fossils for thousands of years. The Chinese for example found dinosaur bones thousands of years ago and thought they were "dragon bones" and painted pictures of dragons, etc. This does not mean that the Chinese had dinosaurs as pets.
  
  5. Nevermind that for our resident scientist here, pictures of what appear to be dinosaurs constitutes solid evidence that Dinosaurs and humans co-existed but the refined techniques that date these fossils are propaganda by evolutionists! LOL!
  
  6. It is fine to have a hypothesis that the earth is young but Your hypothesis about how the world came to be has been thoroughly refuted by physics, archaeology, geology, biology and everything in between. When a hypothesis is thoroughly refuted, you give it up. You don't retain it out of wishful thinking. Hope this helps.
• BoatShoes

  jmog;1602071 wrote:Not sure to be honest, could just be a metaphorical story, could not be.

  Jonah and Da Fish = Maybe a Metaphor
  
  Random reference to a "Behemoth" in a poem that has an Anthropomorphic God betting with the Devil = "Describes Exactly a Brachiosaurus"
  
  
• BoatShoes

  jmog;1602170 wrote:Where does it talk about mammoth's becoming extinct? Where does it talk about dogs being created? Where does it say that Alexander the Great was born? Where does it say the that Confucius was born?
  
  Just because every historical fact that has ever happened isn't listed in the Bible doesn't negate the Bible. If your logic held true then every single history book ever written is wrong because it doesn't include EVERYTHING that ever happened.
  
  And you say you use logic and reason? You really messed up on that one.

  He's suggesting an extinction of the "behemoths" that lived among humans while everyone else survived would be a pretty big event worth mentioning. After all, they mentioned when God killed off everybody with a super-flood mirite?
  
  How do you think the dinosaurs went extinct Jmog while the humans who tamed them survived??? Guess it couldn't have been an asteroid 60 million years ago :RpS_w00t:
• jmog

  BoatShoes;1602442 wrote:
  3. And Jmog we know that those fossils are millions of years old! LOL. There were no dinosaurs walking around with humans!
  
  4. You are wrong about dinosaur fossils not being discovered until the 1800's. Civilizations have been discovering dinosaur fossils for thousands of years. The Chinese for example found dinosaur bones thousands of years ago and thought they were "dragon bones" and painted pictures of dragons, etc. This does not mean that the Chinese had dinosaurs as pets.
  
  5. Nevermind that for our resident scientist here, pictures of what appear to be dinosaurs constitutes solid evidence that Dinosaurs and humans co-existed but the refined techniques that date these fossils are propaganda by evolutionists! LOL!
  
  6. It is fine to have a hypothesis that the earth is young but Your hypothesis about how the world came to be has been thoroughly refuted by physics, archaeology, geology, biology and everything in between. When a hypothesis is thoroughly refuted, you give it up. You don't retain it out of wishful thinking. Hope this helps.

  See, we are right back to the "we know". How do "we know"? Can't use carbon dating as that has been refuted and not used by real archaeologists anymore to date dinosaurs. However, even with the fact that the half life of C14 is so "fast" that you can't use it to date more than 50k years,they still used C14 to date dinosaurs to millions of years old for DECADES. Now, instead, they date the fossils based on where they are in the rocks, they do NOT date the fossil at all. We have already talked about the different assumptions that could be right or wrong about rock dating techniques.
  
  It has not been "thoroughly refuted" by those branches of science since none of them have used observational or testable science to do so. They have taken what they see NOW and made predictions. We have already discussed how well that works with something as simple as throwing a baseball.
  
  Let's do another thought experiment or two for a minute.
  
  If we see something like a skyscraper or something even like a cave drawing we KNOW that these were created by humans because they are somewhat complex enough to not be formed randomly. The cave drawing didn't happen randomly by primitive pigments flying through the wind and landing in just the right pattern to make a buffalo (or whatever). The skyscraper we KNOW didn't happen randomly because it is too complex. Even 500 years from now when no one can see/know who built the skyscraper (let's assume the information was lost/deleted) they would still know it was built by humans, an intelligent species.
  
  However, we as humans, look at life, something that is FAR more complex than anything in the universe, something so complex that we still do not have the technology in the lab to create life, and we ASSUME/KNOW life came randomly/spontaneously through natural causes in a 'primordial soup'.
  
  Do you not see the intellectual hypocrisy of that?
  
  Another one...
  
  Consider a report you wrote in HS. Let's assume there is a paper copy found 5000 years from now where the English language has been totally changed or extinct completely. The future humans would still be able to determine that said report was written by an "intelligent being" and would infer human depending on the content of the report. They would not assume that a computer randomly threw letters together and magically arrived at a coherent thought process in a report. You used language, letters, etc.
  
  In the English language there are around 400,000 words created by 26 letters. Those 26 letters can be represented by something as small as 3 different Morse code symbols (dash, dot, space). How those letters are arranged determine if there is a coherent sentence or gibberish. We KNOW the English language was developed overtime by humans, we know this because we can 'see' the intelligence behind it. Even without written history we 'know' this about ancient languages we find as well.
  
  Now, about 100,000 proteins combine to make 20 amino acids which combine to make the 4 nucleotides (A,T,C,G) of our DNA. How those nucleotides are arranged determine if the result is a human or banana. The intellectual hypocrisy is that we see a written language as originated intellectually, but we see a much more complicated biological language as randomly happening from natural causes.
• jmog

  BoatShoes;1602450 wrote:He's suggesting an extinction of the "behemoths" that lived among humans while everyone else survived would be a pretty big event worth mentioning. After all, they mentioned when God killed off everybody with a super-flood mirite?
  
  How do you think the dinosaurs went extinct Jmog while the humans who tamed them survived??? Guess it couldn't have been an asteroid 60 million years ago :RpS_w00t:

  And you say you aren't being pretentious, at least be honest if you want an answer from me anymore. Be honest that you are trying to look smarter than anyone who happens to believe in a supreme being. Be honest that you are being extremely denigrating.
  
  At least sleeper is straight forward and honest and doesn't try to pretend.
  
  Be honest, and I will answer your questions the best that I can.
• Automatik

  

  This thread delivers.
• BoatShoes

  jmog;1602470 wrote:See, we are right back to the "we know". How do "we know"? Can't use carbon dating as that has been refuted and not used by real archaeologists anymore to date dinosaurs. However, even with the fact that the half life of C14 is so "fast" that you can't use it to date more than 50k years,they still used C14 to date dinosaurs to millions of years old for DECADES. Now, instead, they date the fossils based on where they are in the rocks, they do NOT date the fossil at all. We have already talked about the different assumptions that could be right or wrong about rock dating techniques.

  Jmog, we know by dating the rocks sandwiching dinosaur fossils repeatedly, all over the earth that with uranium-lead dating and that we are able to discern that dinosaurs were around about 65 million years ago. Your silly little baseball analogy might be applicable to the Big Bang if I'm being absolutely as generous as possible but it does not undermine anything with regard to dating rocks lol.
  
  We can track to radioactive decay of the rocks sandwiching dinosaur fossils and we've repeated this over and over again with dinosaur fossils all over the earth and it yields the same approximate time. This is repeated testing over and over again! I can't believe we're even debating this lol! The only way it is false is if the decay from uranium to lead is a pack of lies from the Devil Himself!!!
  
  They aren't pulling this out of their ass Jmog!
  
  [video=youtube;s0_i8ltnbNU][/video]
  
  [video=youtube;6pYPqtdTnrM][/video]
• BoatShoes

  jmog;1602471 wrote:And you say you aren't being pretentious, at least be honest if you want an answer from me anymore. Be honest that you are trying to look smarter than anyone who happens to believe in a supreme being. Be honest that you are being extremely denigrating.
  
  At least sleeper is straight forward and honest and doesn't try to pretend.
  
  Be honest, and I will answer your questions the best that I can.

  Again, I'm not trying to "look smarter" than anyone. Smart people believe dumb things all of the time. And I'm certainly not trying to "look smarter" than "anyone who happens to believe in a supreme being."
  
  I have not denigrated cruiser or HitsRus or anyone else in this thread who has professed a belief in a Supreme Being. I don't know if a Supreme Being exists or not. I'm denigrating you, a Young Earth Creationist who pretends like you were once a sincere believer in common descent and natural selection, because thousands of people way smarter than I am have demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that Young Earth Creationism is wrong, that the earth is billions of years old and that evolution with common descent is a fact of the natural world. We as a civilization understand radioactive decay. We understand mendelian genetics and natural selection. But, you give more weight to the mention of "behemoth" in a book of myths than you do to the last 100 years of scientific research.
  
  You want to believe a supreme being created the Universe? Fine. We can never prove that proposition wrong and meditations on the origin of the universe always collapse into fideism. You want to believe that the Earth is 6,000 years old and that a drunk actually carried baby dinosaurs onto a ship so a God could destroy the world and start over promising never to do so again with a rainbow in spite of the overwhelming evidence to the contrary??? You deserve to be lampooned.
• sleeper

  

  cruiser_96;1602151 wrote:No, good sir. Our existence and everything that is here is evidence of something outside of us placing us here. Science has proven that spontaneous generation has not, does, and will not occur. So, the burden of proof is on you. ...how (or why) something rather than nothing?
  
  I have already answered the "Who created god and why". God exists outside of the time realm we are regulated to. See Aseity. This also answers why God can exist but everything can't exist from eternity past. It's the nature of time. It (time) had a beginning. If time always existed, we would never get to this point. (Try counting from negative infinity - you'll never get to the number 42.) Secondarily, time and space are not causal agents. Neither is chance for that matter. Give time all the chances in the world, and chance all the time in the world, and give both all the space it needs, but nothing will always result in nothing.
  
  This is my issue with the idea of an atheistic universe. These things are impossible and what we are left with in an atheistic universe.

  God has his own special rules? LOL how convenient. I'll let science figure out 'spontaneous generation' as you like to call it. Perhaps BoatShoes can elaborate but isn't that what CERN is all about? Creating something from nothing?
  
  I have always stated there may be a slimmest of slim chance of there being some sort of 'creator'; however given current evidence you would have to reject that hypothesis. I can confidently say 100% that there is no religious based god because religious based gods have stories that took place on Earth and zero of these stories have ever been proven.
• sleeper

  

  cruiser_96;1602161 wrote:My main point deals with there being two options concerning the universe: atheistic or theistic. If atheistic, then numerous problems (in my mind) arise - spontaneous generation, the nature of time, non-life to life, etc. Again, the fact that I am/we are here is in direct contradiction to this (an atheistic universe) scenario.

  Except theists have to prove one more thing than atheists and that's where did god come from. If you assume that god created everything you can't just say 'well god has always existed'; you also have to prove where god came from which would had to be from nothing. Why can't everything just have always existed just like you claim that god has just always existed in his own time realm(or whatever else you make up since its all made up anyway)?
  
  This ignores entirely that most theists believe in religious based gods and have to PROVE their religion is correct over the thousands of other religions in existence; talk about a battle of ignorance.
• sleeper

  

  jmog;1602170 wrote:Where does it talk about mammoth's becoming extinct? Where does it talk about dogs being created? Where does it say that Alexander the Great was born? Where does it say the that Confucius was born?
  
  Just because every historical fact that has ever happened isn't listed in the Bible doesn't negate the Bible. If your logic held true then every single history book ever written is wrong because it doesn't include EVERYTHING that ever happened.
  
  And you say you use logic and reason? You really messed up on that one.

  You would think an event that wiped out 99.9% of species on the planet would be at least a footnote somewhere in the bible. In regards to your next quip, just because the bible has some historical fact does not mean Jesus turned water into wine and came back from the dead.
• jmog

  BoatShoes;1602486 wrote:Again, I'm not trying to "look smarter" than anyone. Smart people believe dumb things all of the time. And I'm certainly not trying to "look smarter" than "anyone who happens to believe in a supreme being."
  
  You want to believe a supreme being created the Universe? Fine. We can never prove that proposition wrong and meditations on the origin of the universe always collapse into fideism. You want to believe that the Earth is 6,000 years old and that a drunk actually carried baby dinosaurs onto a ship so a God could destroy the world and start over promising never to do so again with a rainbow in spite of the overwhelming evidence to the contrary??? You deserve to be lampooned.

  You can't seriously contradict yourself that fast in the same post can you?
  
  Conversation over until you can have an honest conversation without resorting to ad hominem.
• jmog

  sleeper;1602505 wrote:You would think an event that wiped out 99.9% of species on the planet would be at least a footnote somewhere in the bible. In regards to your next quip, just because the bible has some historical fact does not mean Jesus turned water into wine and came back from the dead.

  99.9% of the species on the planet? What 'event' are you talking about and what does it have to do with the main theme of the Bible?
  
  Does the Bible contain many historical facts? Yes
  Is the Bible a history book meant to contain all historical facts that sleeper deems relevant? No
  The Bible was meant to be a book to cover the history of people who follow God, how those people are supposed to live (morals, etc), and what is to be expected in the future. It is not meant to be a history book, but it does happen to have many historical facts in it in the process.
• BoatShoes

  jmog;1602593 wrote:You can't seriously contradict yourself that fast in the same post can you?
  
  Conversation over until you can have an honest conversation without resorting to ad hominem.

  Smart people believe dumb things all of the time.

  ^^^You missed something.
  
  I'll say it differently. You are a smart person who holds some beliefs about the world, particularly related to the age of the earth, that do not correspond to reality because a deeply held commitment to fundamentalist evangelical Christianity.
  
  I am a dumber person than you who holds some beliefs about the world, particularly related to the age of the earth, that correspond with reality because they are not clouded by a deeply held commitment to fundamentalist evangelical Christianity.
  
  This debate is not about stupidity. Aristotle was one of the smartest men to ever walk to earth but he thought the sun revolved around the Earth. It is about having the good sense to change your beliefs to correspond with the evidence. We know the Earth is not 6,000 years old. Change your beliefs, move on and enjoy your life.
• sleeper

  

  jmog;1602597 wrote:99.9% of the species on the planet? What 'event' are you talking about and what does it have to do with the main theme of the Bible?
  
  Does the Bible contain many historical facts? Yes
  Is the Bible a history book meant to contain all historical facts that sleeper deems relevant? No
  The Bible was meant to be a book to cover the history of people who follow God, how those people are supposed to live (morals, etc), and what is to be expected in the future. It is not meant to be a history book, but it does happen to have many historical facts in it in the process.

  So Jonah and the Whale happened? And there was a great flood? All of these are deeply rooted in the history of the people who follow God but nowhere else.
  
  The event I'm talking about is the extinction event that happened millions of years ago.
• DeyDurkie5

  

  God created everything, yet only made one planet that is able to handle human life. God is one terrible architect.
• queencitybuckeye

  DeyDurkie5;1602637 wrote:God created everything, yet only made one planet that is able to handle human life. God is one terrible architect.

  Is that stated in the Bible, or is it implied from Genesis?
• DeyDurkie5

  

  queencitybuckeye;1602662 wrote:Is that stated in the Bible, or is it implied from Genesis?

  It's stated in chapter 8 of the Sorcerers Stone
• sleeper

  

  queencitybuckeye;1602662 wrote:Is that stated in the Bible, or is it implied from Genesis?

  Does it matter? If we ever discover life somewhere else, bible thumpers will find some obscure vague phrase in the bible and twist it to make it sound like god made aliens.