God vs Science

[HDRKID]

What is science. It is the opposite of what I believe in.

People say that science is knowledge, but that is interesting to me. God gave adam a choice of two trees. The tree of knowledge and the tree of life. The tree of knowledge brings death. Sadly, it carries many curses. Religion truly is anti science. This is from the very core.

Also, here is an interesting passage.
Matthew 18:3
And he said: "Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

Children lack knowledge and are the opposite of wise. Funny, that you did not see.

 

[Khaos]

People say that science is knowledge, but that is interesting to me. God gave adam a choice of two trees. The tree of knowledge and the tree of life.

No? There was only one tree. Your sentence there makes me question if you even have read the bible, because that not even what God did or said.

The tree of knowledge brings death. Sadly, it carries many curses.

Saw an interesting video about this a few months ago:

I don't see what that bible passage has to do with this conversation. Throwing passages from the Judaism/Christan bible is a waste of time and effort, since I don't follow those religions.

Funny, that you did not see.

What I see is someone who is incredibly stubborn and ignorant. Holding blindly onto a belief, they truly have no idea of. You keep claiming that Judaism/Christianity is "this and that" but you have no idea. Actually you're the kind of person who makes others in their religion look bad, because there are people out there like you who are spreading nonsense about their religion. God never presented Adam with two trees. He never presented Adam with a choice of eating from one. And furthermore, it wasn't Adam who ate from the tree. It was EVE, who then shared the fruit with Adam.

The actual quote from Genesis:

The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. 16 And the Lord God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.”

Genesis 2 NIV - Thus the heavens and the earth were - Bible Gateway

I've done research on religions, they are interesting, but I have no interest in being a part of one. I have my beliefs, but I'm not religious about them. But that is the great thing about knowledge, being able to learn about other things in life. Which sadly you never was able to participate in.

I bet you couldn't even tell me what 2+2 is.

If you want to debate something with someone, you have to know what you are talking about!

I'm in no way mocking you for your belief, if you want to take the Christian religion, and its religious texts and change the wording and pretend that is what it says, other than what it actually says, go for it. But anyone else here who follows the Christian religion will tell you that you are wrong.

And its probably why the other religious folks here have stayed out of this topic. I was half expecting ann holt and Samstwitch to appear, but they haven't... which leads me to think that they see the ignorance being spewed and they don't want anything to do with it.

Furthermore, I have a friend who is a creationist, he doesn't believe in evolution entirely, he believes that things in life could have a form of evolution, but doesn't believe in it fully.

When I showed him your comments... He asked me to tell you:

"Go back to school"

 

[C_jami]

No? There was only one tree. Your sentence there makes me question if you even have read the bible, because that not even what God did or said.



Saw an interesting video about this a few months ago:

I don't see what that bible passage has to do with this conversation. Throwing passages from the Judaism/Christan bible is a waste of time and effort, since I don't follow those religions.



What I see is someone who is incredibly stubborn and ignorant. Holding blindly onto a belief, they truly have no idea of. You keep claiming that Judaism/Christianity is "this and that" but you have no idea. Actually you're the kind of person who makes others in their religion look bad, because there are people out there like you who are spreading nonsense about their religion. God never presented Adam with two trees. He never presented Adam with a choice of eating from one. And furthermore, it wasn't Adam who ate from the tree. It was EVE, who then shared the fruit with Adam.

The actual quote from Genesis:



Genesis 2 NIV - Thus the heavens and the earth were - Bible Gateway

I've done research on religions, they are interesting, but I have no interest in being a part of one. I have my beliefs, but I'm not religious about them. But that is the great thing about knowledge, being able to learn about other things in life. Which sadly you never was able to participate in.

I bet you couldn't even tell me what 2+2 is.

If you want to debate something with someone, you have to know what you are talking about!

I'm in no way mocking you for your belief, if you want to take the Christian religion, and its religious texts and change the wording and pretend that is what it says, other than what it actually says, go for it. But anyone else here who follows the Christian religion will tell you that you are wrong.

And its probably why the other religious folks here have stayed out of this topic. I was half expecting ann holt and Samstwitch to appear, but they haven't... which leads me to think that they see the ignorance being spewed and they don't want anything to do with it.

Furthermore, I have a friend who is a creationist, he doesn't believe in evolution entirely, he believes that things in life could have a form of evolution, but doesn't believe in it fully.

When I showed him your comments... He asked me to tell you:

"Go back to school"

I wonder why you fighting so much .... I believe you're really angry with God and religion for some reasons. Darling whatever happen to you is not our fault.

 

[C_jami]

Khaos sorry I didn't mean to say it like that. But I just don't understand why you the only one who is trying so much. You are free to believe in whatever you want. But we are free to believe it our way to

 

[Khaos]

Its called "debating" nothing wrong with that, and as I said in my post, I'm not mocking him for his beliefs, I'm just pointing out he is wrong by taking what is in the religious text he is talking about and twisting it around. I mean, would you not agree that is wrong?

Let's say I took the story of Noah's Ark and twisted it around to say that Noah's "sons" were actually daughters who were lesbians. Would you tell me that is wrong? Even though, I said that I believed that and it was my belief. (its not my belief, speaking hypothetically)

I don't have an issue with "God" I said it earlier in this topic, I believe in a God. I may not believe in the same God you believe in, which I have that right to have my own God to believe in (and you just stated that in your post) but I'm on the same level here.

I just think the guy is wrong by insinuating what he believes in to be the right and only thing. When its not... that isn't how the book of genesis is written. But he insinuates it is. What irks me. Doesn't that irk you?

 

[HDRKID]

I do not want you to reach the end of your life and wonder - what is my purpose?

That is what science is. It is life without meaning. Life with no purpose.

 

[Orpheus Rex]

While occasionally the time aspect causing problems does occasionally occur, such as when NASA was surprised that their initial unmanned test on moon dust showed significantly less dust than they had thought should accumulate. Such discrepancies don't mean that the rest of science should be thrown out! It just means that there needs to be more searching to explain the phenomena. The comet can be explained fairly easily though. Do you really think that space is just some great void? It isn't. There are particles that the comet can pick up on its journey. This significantly slows the melting of the comet. On top of that, the comet spends most of its time away from the sun collecting material. While the comet will eventually melt, this can be calculated. It is unwise to dismiss something prior to fully looking at all the facts. Not to mention the way you don't even mention how the formation of the comet couldn't explain how the comet lasted so long.
Nevertheless, both sides of this discussion both show their utter ignorance of the subject matter. The fact is that for the most part, only American Protestants still hold classic creationist views. The creationist viewpoint has not even been properly stated or addressed here, which typically holds creation about 4000 years ago (not 2000 years like Khaos erroneously stated) and they have a full system in which they try to scientifically justify that viewpoint. The Creation Museum in Kentucky is an oddity of such work. BTW, I don't believe in creationism. Genesis normally viewed metaphorically as can be seen by the large amounts of metaphoric symbolism in the text.
My days, this thread makes me not want to live on this planet anymore.

So, let me summarize what both sides have said so far in a factual list and I'll add some fact correction to them.

1. Creationists are viewed by scientists as being morons. - Probably true, I view most creationists as morons; only 1 out of a 10 million of them seem to be able to properly argue their own side. But this is still a sweeping generalizations as some creationists are respected in the scientific community.
2. Two people popping up randomly 2000 years ago is very unlikely, especially compared to what we know about fertilization and embryonic development.
   -The creationist view is misstated here, it was 4000-ish years, not 2000. Some creationists believe in 10,000 years. Nevertheless, people popping up randomly is unlikely. The creationist has to put faith in God to be able to conceive such a notion. Nevertheless, the initial spark of life still hasn't been explained either. It is far easier to believe in a small form of life popping out of non-life than a bigger life, and this option still allows for God to create and guide evolution.
3. Comet easily explained with science. - Facts seem correct.
4. Contradictions in science, but still using the results of science daily. - Legitimately flawed logical structure pointed out.
5. 2 to 7 billion people in 4000 years? - Could be mathmatically calculated to show probability, but I'm not going to verify if assumed result is accurate. At best, the conditions would have to be right to allow for it.
6. Point about beliefs not being able to be taken away by other people. - accurate
7. Short discussion on fundamental beliefs. - I tend to follow Nietzsche myself. He said, to paraphrase, that no matter how much logic you use you will reach fundamental conceptions about reality that are cannot be reasoned back to any more fundamental level. Therefore, since it is impossible to logically know what those foundation are, they cannot be known. Since the fundamental truths cannot be rationally known, the individual is allowed to decide for himself what those foundations truly are. Those foundations include the foundations of logic itself. However, whatever you believe must be consistent within the framework of those chosen foundations, or else it can't be true. Cross reference this back to #4, #10, and #6.
   
8. Assertion of the myth of the noble savage who lived without crime and was happy without "western" science. - All cultures have crime. They might not be dealt in the same as others or even called "crime." But we see that there are action that are considered to be taboo in a culture and the people of that culture do suffer consequences for doing so. There is no society on earth, ever (except maybe the in the Garden of Eden, if it existed), that didn't have the occasional cold blooded murder. Even dolphins have been known to kill in cold blood. Besides, what is happiness? How can you simply assume that someone was happy and that science was the direct cause of that happiness being taken away? Did science actually take away that happiness or did abused technology take it away?
9. Overcrowded prisons and sewer rivers. - The prison problem is mostly in the U.S. A few other countries are actually seeing a decline in prisons and as for sewer rivers, many rivers including the Thames were sewer rivers far before science went mainstream in those rgions. Science itself started with natural philosophers like Aristotle and did the Athenians live in such deplorable conditions that you describe?
10. Yes, maybe some people worship science, but why is that wrong? Sweden is also proscience are they letting their people starve to death while building ICBM's? Do you have any proof that that the world is illusion or maya? Why should that construct alter how we interact with this world? Does your belief system even hold up to itself?
11. Yet again, is the supposed decline in human morality caused by science? Or is this supposed fact merely coincidental? There certainly have been plenty of other major world changing events that could be linked to it. Can you link science directly to the decline?
12. There is no Vs. - I am incline to agree. C.S. Lewis talked about this in "The Abolition of Man," where he said that magic and science are similar because they are both methodologies to exert control over nature for good or for ill. Religion isn't necessarily magic, but I think the concept still applies a the understanding level. Both are acceptable methodologies to understanding the universe. In my opinion they work when united best together and not getting in each others way.
13. People don't say science is knowledge, but it is a methodology for gaining knowledge. Knowledge doesn't necessitate death either. God said that if you eat from the "tree of knowledge of good and evil" you will surely die. This doesn't mean all kinds of knowledge are deadly.
14. You quote a verse out of context from the book its in. I hate when people do this. As if simply citing an arbitrary verse justifies or rationalizes anything. You can distort anything if you take it out of context. You assume to much and with an obvious lack of understanding behind the books you say you support. Also please, why do you assume Christianity/Judaism is the only religion to be considered? Most Buddhists and Taoists I know like science. Japan has a lot of Shintoist, but yet they are known for their work in computer sciences!
15. More contradictions pointed out over the mind being open.
    
16. Well... there were two trees. After they eat from the tree of knowledge, then God sent a Chimera with a flaming sword to prevent them from reaching the tree of life. But it is correct to say that God didn't give them a choice between the two. He merely said you can eat of all the trees in the garden except the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. We don't even know if that was a temporary ban or a permanent ban. Maybe if Adam and Eve had waited and learned more about creation, God, and the universe (maybe with the help of scientific methodology) they could have matured to the point where it would have been acceptable to eat that fruit. Additionally I must point out that God left several opportunities for redemption after the fruit had already been eaten.
    
17. Although the video Khaos posted has dozens upon dozens of textual inaccuracies and flawed or unbased assumptions. I mean, if you go with the actually well stated creationist viewpoint, most of the criticism in the video fall down immediately too. Its version of the events are overly simplistic and rather unimaginative. It lacks the philosophical ground to stand up against complex mysticism. Simply put, I know plenty of people who could debunk it logically in a thousand ways. Several of them don't believe in the story either. That video also makes me not want to live on this planet anymore.
    
18. I am just as irked as you Khaos.
    
19. The old, "what about when you die" argument was thrown down quite effectively by Arthur C. Clarke and Stephen Baxter in their book, "The Light of Other Days." Which describes an immortal afterlife created by science. A very interesting read.

Overall, the belief that a God made the universe is very common among scientists. Michio Kaku lead me to believe in God with his books on science. He was one of the primary writers behind String Theory and he described the universe as being similar to a giant "stringed" instrument and that someone must be playing a beautiful melody on the strings. I think the description is in the introduction to his book, "Hyperspace." It wasn't creationism, but it was an argument for intelligent design that was cleverly consructed.

If you want a good portrait of creationism, go to the Creation Museum in Kentucky. It is well done and hey, if you are going to debate about creationism, it is probably the best place to learn that side.
If you just want to debate the theological implications of Genesis, you need to read major Christan and Jewish theological works. This includes the Eastern Orthodox Christian View, the Roman Catholic View, the Calvinist view, and any of those other major views.
As it is, I tend to see ignorant Atheist making ridiculous arguments that only win because the Christians are more ignorant. I love a good debate between the two, but its so rare. Dawkins despite his efforts tends to be ignorant on a lot of subjects regarding Christianity (example would be his view of knowledge of prayer only extends to the "hypercalvinist" viewpoint, but when he does know what he is talking about, he is great. Nevertheless, he rarely faces an opponent that requires him to expand his knowledge, which is Dawkin's main problem. If he had a significant rival, I feel that many great works and debates could happen.

 

[Khaos]

2 to 7 billion people in 4000 years? - Could be mathmatically calculated to show probability, but I'm not going to verify if assumed result is accurate. At best, the conditions would have to be right to allow for it.

A friend and I actually sat down and calculated this. He's a mathematical wizard. Great with number crunching. This calculation was actually based of of 2,000 years instead of 4,000 btw.

If a woman two thousand years ago, began to ovulate at the age of ten, and there was at least one male with fertile sperm, and she lived the current like expectancy span, she could produce roughly 120 babies within a thirty year period. However this is only possible if she is popping babies out one right after the other. Take the 9/10 month cycle of pregnancy, she would have to get pregnant right after she gives birth. Keep multiplying this, for each generation, you get roughly 15 billion people in a span of 2,000 years.

This calculation does not include infertile males/females, still born babies, miscarriages, diseases, death and natural disasters (ie, the bubonic plague). It just includes a healthy male and female living the full life span.

So yes, in theory, it is very well possible. But the question remains, did it truly happen? I don't think so. But that is my opinion.

And thank you for taking the time to answer this topic, Rex. I'm aware the video contains plenty of historical inaccuracies, however I feel the general theme is prevalent. What if, the biblical Adam and Eve had obeyed God and resisted the temptation to eat the forbidden fruit? The result in the video may be taken out of literal context and skewed, but the general theme of the result may be accurate, we wouldn't be living in the same world as we live today.

 

[HDRKID]

TAKEN FROM BBC News - Many children 'slower runners than their parents were'
Researchers analysed data spanning 46 years and involving more than 25 million children in 28 countries.
On average, children today run a mile 90 seconds slower than did their counterparts 30 years ago, they said.

Evolution says that the weak persish and only the strong survive. It appears that is not our case. People should run faster as that would increase our chances to survive. Where is the evidence for survival of the fittest? What do I say on science. It is a religion based on lies and falsehoods, but the truth will shine on.

OK as for the video on adam and eve. Well, we live in an enormous universe. God no doubt intended that we explore it.

 

[Khaos]

Posting a quote from Social Darwinism and claiming an article proves it? I thought you creationists didn't believe in Evolution? I really wonder if you even want to hold a debate, I think you really just created this topic to pick a fight with science "worshippers" as you call them. And you complain when Atheists pick a fight with Theists about religion... Ha.