GOD vs SCIENCE
Whom do you think has created the world.........
Side Score: 180
Side Score: 179
In any debate it is important to assert the facts. Facts are the basic support structure of any argument, and anybody with common sense would agree. So let's examine the facts;
*The defintion of FACT; an idea that is true becuase of circumstantial evidence to support it.
This is something that many "mythologists" fail to understand. There IS evidence that Jesus was real. But, evidence that he was God/Part Of God amounts to nothing more than folklore and stories. Christians take their faith on the bible. Definition of FAITH; to believe in something without circumstantial evidence to support it. Here is another fact; The bible was not only written decades after Jesus, but was edited and re-written numerously. Books were added and removed, translated and re-translated since it was written almost 2,000 years ago.
Christianity's main argument for the existence of God is the bible. So theoretically, if a single part of the bible is proved untrue then the thread of Judea religion is torn apart right? The bible was written (and re-written) so that there is no way to prove it wrong. Kinda like a horiscope right? Science is absolute fact. It is based on the PROVEN laws of nature. It is based on humanity's need to know the truth of the world around us. Christians believe that becuase we can't explain the creation of the universe, God must have done it. Most people can't possibly fathom the imensity of the unviverse so to assume that there is a creator who conjured up the whole of it is preposterous. FACT; Creation of the Universe (The Big Bang)
is only a theory, and not accepted as a proven law. So to use something that is still as of yet, unexplainable, to "prove" the existence of God is actually more damaging to your argument than anything.
Now it is time for opinions:
People are afraid of the unknown. Since the beginning of mankind people have had gods and folklore to explain the unknown. As science developed, gods became obsolete and purely fantasy. The modern Christian is just a product of an earlier ancester. People cannot accept the fact that death may possibly be permanent and final. They cannot accept that life is just a random universal evolution. People want to be comforted by the fact that there is someone there to guide and nurture them. The real miracle is life itself and your time in consious existance should be considered the most valuable gift of all. Life is precisiuos, enjoy it. Accept that we are infitesminally small and only amount to anything as a whole. Life is a wonderful beautiful thing that should be chersish accordingly.
Please note: I am not trying to shove my beliefs down anyone's throat. This is just my argument as an intelligent person. I think Christians have a wonderful moral basis (for the most part) and that everyone has the right to live and believe in what you will.
I will ask you this: how big is the universe? Isn't it infinite, according to most scientists? Tell me, have you ever measured how big it is? Then how do you know it is infinite? You believe that the universe is infinite without actually knowing how big it actually is. Sounds to me like science is based on faith as well. :)
to believe in something without circumstantial evidence to support it.
You can never be completely sure that any scientific theory is true anyways. Just because there is no evidence to contradict one does not mean that there may be evidence in the future to contradict it.
First, not once did I mention that the Universe is infinite. I did not even imply that. Einestein claims that the universe is constantly expanding, but that it has boundries. Secondly, if you are to imply that the Universe isn't imense, just becuase you haven't seen then I have a questions for you;
1.By your own logic, Why believe in a God you can't see, or hear?
Sounds to me like science is based on faith as well. :)
You would be wrong.
While if you're watching the science channel, and it's some special about the Universe, you may hear the word "infinite" thrown around,
this is because it's tv though. In a classroom or lab, no self-respecting scientist would use such a silly term.
We know that "infinite" is impossible,
a couple things scientists do believe are,
The Universe folds in on itself, so if you were going in what you thought was a straight line at the speed of light for trillions and trillions of years, you would eventually end up where you started,
by then of course everything would be different, so even at the speed of light it would appear infinite,
Others don't believe it folds in on itself, but is limited.
Currently we know it is expanding, some believe it will collapse in on itself again, others think it will just keep going on forever,
whatever the correct theory though,
none of them involve infinity, simply numbers we cannot yet imagine.
Well, neither created the world. The world happened on it's own through the natural evolution of the Universe.
I mean, we made science, so obviously science has not made anything before we existed.
And whether or not there is a god, we already know how the world came into being right up to something like a millionth of a second after the big bang, and it wasn't a magic creator waving a wand.
As you can see, science requires some sentient being. The Universe is not "aware" in any way, and as far as we know, the conditions under which the big bang occured would have been impossible for any sentient being to have existed in, much less to have facilitated.
Therefore, while our understanding of the big bang is a result of science, the big bang itself has 0 to do with science.
That's not even remotely close to what he said.
Science is a generalised concept to encapsulate many individual entities. He's right in saying that "science" itself didn't create the earth; it was a process that occured which we encapsulate within the concept of science. The big bang occured, which led to the eventual creation of the universe. The big bang is a scientific theory. So, one of the scientific theories led to the earth's creation, not science itself.
Science makes my cars go, and my computer run.
Science cures disease and prolongs life.
Science explains natural phenomena.
Science gives reason to the otherwise reasonless.
Science has created prosthetics for people who have lost limbs.
Science has done so much it's disturbingly awesome.
God has done... uh... well, I don't know how to answer that.
Science: monotheism is a dated kind of thinking. One cannot fully integrate something like this into their life because of the way society is setup now. During the time when Jerusalem was in full bloom, no one had technology or many forms of entertainment like we do today. Science explains that there are many concrete and logical reasons for things, which paints a clear picture of the world around them to those who prefer it. Although a modern religion is somewhat important, it is also equally important for people to realize that they cannot dominate their lives with such things. Many liberals and "new-age" people prefer to use the term agnostic to show their appreciation of God and the world around them. This kind of thinking is probably the closest we will come to full integration of Science and God today.
Since nobody can answer either question, what made the Higgs Boson particle and what made god, we can only keep searching for answers
It doesnt matter if every search and every experiment and finding that science does is worthless or not, I dont need a Higgs Boson, or a any bosons to know that all knowing, all powerful and all loving creators arent likely to be homophobic sexist bullies!
The consensus is some god is our father, what if science was called a father too
One is here everyday making our lives better thru technology, and one is a dead beat no show father who is playing Annie with his tomorrow, tommorrow, I’ll see ya tomorrow routine!
The SAD consensus is, No, not zeus or aphrodite, but a homophobic sexist who threatens punishment if you dont believe and kiss his up to him!
DevientGenie 7:72–Thou can tripith and fall in any squasre mile in this country and hit the ground where a religious claiming pedophile hath walked before.
I’d like to give a Big Higgs Boson shout out to Science….WE LOVE YOU….Thank You for proving your points without crucifing anyone!
Also a big thanks to our sponsors, Check and Mate!
SCIENCE WINS! (Now Say It Like Raden in Mortal Combat)
SCIENCE SHOULD NOT OPPOSE GOD
AND RELIGION SHOULD NOT REJECT SCIENCE UNLESS THE RELIGION IS FAKE
BECAUSE SCIENCE IS ONLY UNVEILING AND EXPLAINING COMPLEX WORKS OF NATURE
IF YOUR SCRIPTURE DOES NOT STAND SCIENCE IT ONLY MEANS YOUR BOOK IS FICTION THEREFORE YOU CAN CREATE SCIENCE FICTION BOOK TO SUPPORT YOUR SCRIPTS.
ISLAM DOES NOT REJECT SCIENCE
QURAN HAS STOOD SCIENCE TEST
QURAN HAS BEEN PROVEN BY SCIENTISTS TO BE FROM GOD
QURAN YOUR ONLY WAY OUT OF THIS MESS.
EVERY ONE SHALL CONSIDER IT IF YOU ARE REASONABLE
IF NOT STAY STUBORN AND OBSTINATE WE'LL C YOUR DESTINITY.
At least one person in this debate is seeing when they look...
We're not here to test the validity of either, independently of the other. The parameters of the debate are set. Consider what is known about God and compare it to what is known about Science.
Step one is whether or not God (if it does exist) could create a universe... Yes, because it's all powerful, all knowing, etc... and whether science could create a universe... SCIENCE IS A METHOD, NOT A THING THAT CAN CREATE!!!
So, JakeJ is finally saying something that makes sense. ;P
If science is a tool for man to study man, and you already said man is god, then science is studying god. Science supports evolutionary theory. Science cannot support both because they are opposing forces. Making science hypocritical. New content is discovered and created in science daily. whereas the bible hasn't been revised or edited in nearly 2000 years. making the bible obsolete and outdated. God killed roughly 1800 people in the bible compared to the devil which allegedly killed 3.
No, Science isn't a person, or a thing that does something, science, like I've said, is nothing more than a tool. It's a function of the human mind, in other words.
The human mind supports evolution via a function. "New" content is found via a function of the mind. The Bible was also a human invention. Hence, man is god. The Bible is less outdated than the last scientific theory because the Bible isn't a theory, it's a book. People may take it as a theory, sure, but that doesn't mean it is one... does it?
Me: "Man is god, science is just a tool for studying man."
You: "Anthropology is the study of man. Science is the study of nature, the world around us, and the laws that govern them"
Anthropology is what, an art? No, it's a science. When I say that science is a tool for studying man this includes anthropology. There is no conflict.
Science can only explain to man what is in man's capacity to know. It is man explaining the universe, not science.
well, unbeliever people just looking for logical explanations about the topics which are related with god. But they usually cant find.
Galaxy is very very big system in which everything working very balanced(regulated). Even in the world is everything very good balanced. And who did regulate everything ? in my opinion :Of course there is a god! ..
I believe that God created science to get a more precise view in life, but people believe that they can prove that he doesn't exist because of atoms and cells, isn't it easy to say that that is what God created for us to understand. He is not just gonna give us an easy trip to the mountain, we ourselves have to climb it in order to enjoy our success. What I mean by that is that most likely God would not wish to declare that he is real but allow us to believe and discover on our own and to put our faith in him.
I wish more Christians would be as rational as you. In no way should science be thought of as hostile to religion, and those Christians who reject science in because they can't understand the idea of metaphors, are doing a disservice to the entire world by standing in the way of knowledge.
the problem with that theory is that the bible, your one source of evidence, doesn't state that it happened that way. There is no explosion described in the bible. There is no explanation in the bible for an expanding universe. In the bible, humans did not evolve, they were created as is in gods image. Seems that you don't agree with your holy source of evidence?
Everything in this world or universe has a creator. The fact remains that scientist are humans which are not guaranteed 100%. This means that they can make errors or even make something up because of human nature. Yes, things get tested over and over, but nothing is 100%. Too many things in this world to explain so I believe there is a creator. Look at medicine, it helps people yet many makers of medication are being sued because medicine is not guaranteed 100%.
Everything has a creator? Great, who or what created your god then? We can all agree that the bible was written by humans, and yet you suggest that because something is created by humans, it can be just made up. Exactly. The bible can be made up. You attack the very advances in medicine that have most likely contributed to your life in countless time. Scientific advances in medicine have allowed us to live longer, healthier lives AS A SPECIES.
Evolution Fails to Predict the Genetic Complexity
Any scientific theory, which evolution is purported to be, has to be able to predict to be a good theory. But evolution in its’ need to connect mutation in the genome to the massive change needed for evolution incorrectly predicted the direct gene to morphology connection. Only with this connection can small mutations actually have the ability to make massive morphological changes necessary for evolution to be plausible.
The Darwin concept:
One gene – One Protein – One Function
But we are learning more about the genetic package and are finding that contrary to the evolutionist’s wish’s the genetic structure has always been surprisingly resilient. I must mention again the accelerated fruit fly experiments and the extraordinary resilience of the fruit fly genome. I believe that this would be a great falsifiability test for evolution.
What evolutionist say is that evolution is a theory that can absorb all new data and take it in and make it part of the theory. When they say that they are not describing a scientific theory, but a philosophy.
We have recently discovered the incredible complexity of the genome and how it reacts and moves its’ instructions to create the morphology or the phenotype of the organism. It is not a one to one correlation, but the complexity is much beyond that.
That is a valid point. But that one point does not derail the whole theory simply because we do not yet understand some of the natural processes that drove it forward. Also I must point out that in scientific terms, the word theory refers to a hypothesis that has been continually tested and proven accurate. As of now, there is an enormous amount of evidence supporting evolutionary theory. If an equal or greater amount of evidence should be presented contrary to evolutionary theory, we would strongly question it's validity or drop it altogether. Obviously that hasn't happened, and to be completely objective (as all scientists should be) we must lean on the side of greatest evidence which at the present time is for evolution. You will have to do more than point out a few inconsistencies to derail the whole theory.
God is always first, however, you cannot deny that science has been a true attribute to the life we live today. We wouldn't have computers to debate, glasses to see, and thank God for allowing man the gift of curiosity, or else we would never have discovered penicillin. Science in definition is "The study of the physical world and its manifestations, especially by using systematic observation and experiment." Now I can say along with anything the devil can be found in it as well.
Sorry I dont usualy get involved in these sorts of debates, But
Quantum Mechanics and multiverse theorems show that this universe is not here by chance.
All accepted scientific theories are based on facts, thats what makes them scientific theories duh.
When all probabilities are exhausted, all eventualities will occure.
Our big bang is not unique, only in our universe is it unique.
Vacumes are not empty, as experiments show that particles come in and out of existance all the time.
one final point to all the people who ask what happened before the big bang, I ask "What happened before time?"
No one know who created this world......and how can one man says that creation this is god.......did he saw while creating ? no. its a belief frnds not more than that...man just talks his assumption dats all......empty mind think a lot...so their is nothing like this god VS science..they both are one...if u think deeply u all will get answer.
Science does not give the true essence of nature. Science is just a language that was created to be able to predict the future and understand the natural world better but not its authentic essence. Theories are devised from models, and not from the true units of nature. When theories are devised, assumptions are made, and hence those theories are not universal. They only aim to understand a specific pattern of nature and not the whole. If we still have not seeing a true picture of an atom and not models, then we still do not know the true essence of nature. Science aims to get the patterns of God but for as long as we use our man-made mathematics and not the mathematics of God, we will never understand Him nor derive an equation to model his workings. The bottom line is He is God of power and nothing can go beyond Him.
Why does it always have to God VS Science? Or Faith VS Evidence? I feel that Science could explain God and creationism, but most people don't like that idea because God is supernatual and the world is natural. God cannot necessarily be proven by worldly evidence, rather, by supernatural evidence. If God is there, why doesn't he just show himself? Because then life would be pointless. This life on earth is short, and we can choose to live in ignorance and deny him, and forever be sorry, or, we can accept him and be eternally thankful for what he has done for us. I honestly feel terrible for Atheists. They are using logic to prove that God can't exist. But in the end, it is their ignorance and obstinance that ends up costing them. I have no interest in hearing you Atheists tell me how stupid and foolish I sound.
When monotheistic religions were created, it really had nothing to do with monotheism. Behind every religion, not just monotheistic ones, there are moral values. The "God" comes in to keep people from thinking "Why should I do all this stuff that they're telling me? What's keeping me from running of and being a bad person?" God is how the religions answer, and keep people from doing bad things by saying God will punish them. It's time that we let go of our belief in a God and be good to others because we care, not because we have to.
Moreover, science is more beautiful than anything in the bible. As Ann Druyan said, the Garden of Eden was more like a super-max prison with 24-hour surveillance. The cosmos, however, is pure beauty. Instead of turning to a god for amazement, just look around you. It's all really there, every planet and every star. You have to stop and think about it; about the vast complexity of space. Every living thing is a triumph of evolution. Each of us is a product of 400 million years of natural selection.
Knowing all of this, there is no need for a god. We have the cosmos, and we have our moral values that can exist without bribery. There have been thousands of confident religions and theologies on this planet, and they all contradict each other. There are also many sciences, but they coincide perfectly and are all unified. Science created us, we created our vision of god. Now we must let that vision go, and pay our respects to the truth.
Bent proteins have had much interest in science for a couple of decades. Many first heard of them in some rather strange diseases such as the Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease or the Mad Cow disease that was caused by a prion or a badly bent protein. We all wondered how could a bent protein cause morphological change in a brain?
As researchers dove deeper into this issue and looked a past research going back into the 1970s they started seeing that there appeared in cells an incredibly complex dance between the genes and protein and RNA folds to transmit data to assemble extremely complex protein machines in the cell as well as transmit data to assemble cell structures as well as create the macro morphology of an organism. This answered some questions that arose in genetic research where it appeared the genes didn’t always have a one to one correspondence with morphological structure. In fact some genes seemed to be connected to multiple structures and some genes seemed to be unconnected. As it turns out the bent proteins provide another layer of highly organized information in the cell. The appear to be bent in non-random ways based on the molecular structure and the bends are actually a function of physics and not biology. We have discovered around 200 of these protein bends and have seen how they actually provide more information to the cell than the genes themselves.
The folding process has been found to be absolutely necessary for the protein to function in the cell and occurs right out of the ribosome. The folded shape is determined by several factors.
1. Internal covalent bonds such as disulfide bridges between cysteine units in the chains.
2. Hydrogen bonds.
3. Hydrophilic and hydrophobic interaction with the surrounding solvent.
4. The interaction with other with other molecules large and small that help carry on cellular function.
In fact two different proteins can fold into similar shapes and perform the same cellular function. But this is all made possible by a process that is guided. Random folds wouldn’t work. The prions of the Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease prove that. There are protein complexes that provide a chaperone that help the proteins to bend in the proper way, and there are chaperones that help the protein to stay in its proper bend. These chaperones are also responsible for metal ions movement in the cell.
This is something evolutionists may claim as “part of the great universal acid” of their theory, but evolutionary theory actually prevented researchers from discovering these protein machines because of the assumptions built into evolution. Another failure and another nail in the coffin. Scientific American. Everything in this world had to be created and I believe it has a creator.