Science vs Religion

[Scavenger]

Search for thuth or the path to god. It might as well be all the same.

I think both (and whatever alternative holds great support) should be taught. Good scientists/teachers don't ignore/taboo alternative theories/views/anything.

[stoffi]

What if god made humans create religion, myths and science? Chicken-egg. Scientists will never have the answer and believers believe they already have it.

Ask any Christian, humans have free will and God won't make them do anything.

[Palem]

Ask any Christian, humans have free will and God won't make them do anything.

There's a pretty good proof showing that humans having free will and God being Omniscient aren't possible.

[scorpio86]

'God won't make them do anything'

?

What about the ten commandment and the threat of having your soul burn in hellfire for all eternity for dissobeying 'God'?

[stoffi]

'God won't make them do anything'

?

What about the ten commandment and the threat of having your soul burn in hellfire for all eternity for dissobeying 'God'?

Any human can still choose to NOT follow the 10 commandments. In the bible, Abraham or whoever it was who was asked by God to sacrifice his son did it by free will. God couldn't force him. He could have chosen not to do so.

Ofc, if they choose to not follow the words of God, they will burn in hell. But on Earth, they can choose what they want to do and even a great deal of Popes chose to go against God by having sex orgies and exploiting the poor, stealing from them. This is one of the reasons why Protestantism was invented by Luther. :)

[scorpio86]

:-)

They will burn in hell ... for not obeying god's rules?

That seems a bit harsh, isn't the threat of having your soul damned to hellfire for all eternity just a tool of fear used by the Christian Churches to scare and cow ignorant people into beleiving in their religion and following the ten commandments which happen to fit in nicely with the laws of (hu)man?

Oh wait yes it is.

I prefer Science to Religion myself. It seems SO much more logical and sensible. I guess it has to do with all of the research and proven facts rather than fantasy stories.

Each to their own.

[stoffi]

:-)

They will burn in hell ... for not obeying god's rules?

That seems a bit harsh, isn't the threat of having your soul damned to hellfire for all eternity just a tool of fear used by the Christian Churches to scare and cow ignorant people into beleiving in their religion and following the ten commandments which happen to fit in nicely with the laws of (hu)man?

Oh wait yes it is.

I prefer Science to Religion myself. It seems SO much more logical and sensible. I guess it has to do with all of the research and proven facts rather than fantasy stories.

Each to their own.

Most of the 10 commandments are pretty decent living rules no matter if you're a Christian or not. :)

[scorpio86]

Indeed yes they are.

[Nuriho]

science is for this world, religion is for the next.
what is there to vs? they cannot mortal combat =\

[scorpio86]

Science vs Religions
Evolution vs Creationism

I personally have no beleif in religion at all, i am spiritual yet with there being so many different religions in the world it leads me to beleive that they are all incorrect attempts at explaining life, as they contradict one another and make no plain sense at all. I realise that life itself makes no plain sense at all but i do not prescribe to any major religion.

We shall all find out one day i suppose ...

[Twyla]

The thing I find most humorous about the entire Creation vs Evolution argument is that, when you get right down to it, they don't really conflict.

A big part of it comes from the language barrier. There are countless instances of a word in one language having no direct translation in another - the meanings can be extremely similar, and usually suffice to get the point across, but they're not always exact.

Worse yet is the simple evolution of language itself. When someone says "back in my day", do people automatically assume that they're referring to a single period of twenty-four hours? No, they're referring to a general expanse of time with no specifically determined boundaries.

Nowadays, we use terms like age, era, and epoch to describe such vast spans of time. Was the Industrial Age the same length as the Bronze Age or the Stone Age? Was the Mesozoic Era the same length as the Jurassic Era or the Cambrian Era? 'Day', as used in English translations of the Bible, works the same way.

Also, when you strip away the edifices and simply look at the progression, things happened pretty much the same way in both versions:

• The world was void and without form, then came into being - sounds like the Big Bang
• Separation of the firmament and the heavens - celestial bodies formed
• Light was created, separating day from night - solar masses ignited

And so forth.

Even the 'evolutionary progression' matches - the fish of the seas, the lizards crawl upon land, birds take flight, the beasts of the fields, and finally humans. The order of progression matches so closely as it makes no nevermind.

The thing that really gets me to thinking is the fact that the Biblical account is nearly five thousand years old - and it's damned near 100% identical to what modern science has concluded. How did THEY know?!?

[scorpio86]

It is the links creationism has to christianity that cause it to conflict with evolution.

Can you rephrase your last sentence, 'The thing that really gets me to thinking is the fact that the Biblical account is nearly five thousand years old - and it's damned near 100% identical to what modern science has concluded. How did THEY know?!?'

i am not being a jerk - i just don't understand it.

[Twyla]

Can you rephrase your last sentence, 'The thing that really gets me to thinking is the fact that the Biblical account is nearly five thousand years old - and it's damned near 100% identical to what modern science has concluded. How did THEY know?!?'

The Theory of Evolution, as well as pretty much all the scientific research humanity has accumulated, has only happened in the last two centuries. Yes, the Greeks and Romans (as well as other civilizations before them) accomplished a great deal, but there's only so much that could be accomplished with the tools they had access to.

The oldest known texts of the Bible date back to before ancient Egypt - and even these were copies of copies. Though the King James version, upon which most modern translations are based, didn't have access to these - those sources only date back roughly 4900 years.

The point is that the progression from the void to the emergence of mankind presented in the Bible is an almost identical match to what has been 'proven' by science. We more or less know how modern science arrived at the conclusions they have, but how would the authors of the original manuscripts have arrived at the same thing? They didn't have the Hubble telescope, supercolliders, or even a decent scientific understanding of human anatomy or the elements!

How did they know the progression they wrote down as facts - facts which are in fairly accurate agreement with what scientists can conclude thousands of years later?

[scorpio86]

Charles Darwin came up with the theory of evolution, Astronomers have been around for many thousands of years, even without telescopes and technology, all sorts of knowledge about the stars has been discovered by people long before two centuries ago. Humanity has been accumulating knowledge about the stars for a massive amount of time

Maybe the oldest known texts in the bible were written by intelligent and educated Egyptian Priests/Astronomers that had already come to these conclusions and they decided to make up a bull$hit lie to try and control the people in their society, the lie spread and we are still here now talking about it.

[Bishop]

The thing I find most humorous about the entire Creation vs Evolution argument is that, when you get right down to it, they don't really conflict.

They conflict at a base level :/