CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Science vs God
Science has tried to explain everything in existence, but how can science make certain assumptions directed towards Creationsm when science itself contradicts its own method (scientific method) by not being able to test it's own hypothesis.
Learning and understanding the world around us, assuming all things have a natural cause or reason.
By definition, science will never be able to prove that God is non-existent. If you say that God is false, there is no evidence to support that claim. God is supernatural, so he can't be experimented for.
This shows you have no reason to believe in God. Please tell me it is actually something other than the fact that you made up a being that can't be tested.
I have personal reasons why I believe in a God, and part of that is faith.
Right, you have reasons you haven't listed, hence, your post doesn't show why to pick God. Faith is actually not a reason. Faith is your belief, not your reason.
I didn't make up a being. The being already existed, so I can't really make up a being when it already exists.
Actually, you have. Your God is different than every other God that anyone else believes in. Since God is unfathomable there will be holes in what everyone believes. You fill the subtle holes differently than what others do. So, you have created a different God.
Right, you have reasons you haven't listed, hence, your post doesn't show why to pick God. Faith is actually not a reason. Faith is your belief, not your reason.
Why should I give reasons, when I'm only going to restate them and you won't believe me anyway? You'll simply keep coming with excuses even when it's hard evidence. It's simply only going to be a waste of time. Faith is a reason because without faith, I wouldn't be able to please God. It takes more faith to believe what you do then it does for me.
Actually, you have. Your God is different than every other God that anyone else believes in. Since God is unfathomable there will be holes in what everyone believes. You fill the subtle holes differently than what others do. So, you have created a different God.
Again, I'm still going to say the same thing. I didn't make a being. It wasn't my idea to create Christianity. Christianity doesn't exist because of me. It exists because of Jesus, not myself. I didn't die on the cross for mankind, I didn't rise from the grave, and the list goes on.
Why should I give reasons, when I'm only going to restate them and you won't believe me anyway?
You don't have to. I was telling you a fact.
You'll simply keep coming with excuses even when it's hard evidence.
You have 0 evidence. You have justification. You pointed out that science can't prove there is no God. Well, nothing you have can prove God.
It's simply only going to be a waste of time.
Agreed.
Faith is a reason because without faith, I wouldn't be able to please God.
That isn't a reason to believe in God. That is what a belief in God accomplishes. So, the "why" is to please God, not to have faith.
It takes more faith to believe what you do then it does for me.
Oh, right. Your mantra. If you say it over and over again maybe one day it will come true. The funny thing about you and everyone else saying that is that you have never given a single reason why that is true that couldn't easily be applied to your own belief.
Again, I'm still going to say the same thing. I didn't make a being. It wasn't my idea to create Christianity. Christianity doesn't exist because of me. It exists because of Jesus, not myself. I didn't die on the cross for mankind, I didn't rise from the grave, and the list goes on.
One day I hope to demonstrate that you don't actual read what I write. You certainly can copy paste the hell out of it, but read it I see no evidence of. There are only 2 ways you could have come up with this response from what I wrote: didn't read what I wrote, or can't comprehend what I wrote. I was talking about God, not your religion.
Okay. Here's my answer to the childish "guy up stairs" theory. That's not the way religion originally meant it to be. It was meant to be a metaphor for a positive order in the universe. The argument for this is to look at how orderly our planet evolved.
Over thousands of years, people have taken these metaphors literally. There's no shame or loss in faith for believing that god isn't actually an entity or being, but rather a guiding force in the universe. You don't have to believe that one day Jesus will reincarnate and save everyone from Satan. These stories have metaphoric morals. Prayers are meant to tap into spiritual energy, which is allegedly scientifically measurable:
This in turn helps change your life. But it's not like religion has to just believe in pure nothingness to fit the atheist standard. I don't know if I believe it, but God is supposed to be a metaphor for the guiding force in the Universe.
All of the Bible stories, including Jesus, are supposed to have deep morals to them that apply to using this energy. They are also metaphoric. Make sense? I will say that we have records of people such as Jesus or Buddha, but no one said they actually were profits. They might have just been masters of tapping into energy, if religion is right at all.
If you believe in religion, I think you should believe in RELIGION!!! and not this guy up stairs shit.*
Yes but millions of people would directly disagree with you and claim that god is exactly what the book says and jesus WILL come back. So who is right? I personally believe its all bullshit
Erm.. the scale of IQ was made so that the average IQ is about 100. If the average IQ wasn't 100 then they would have adjusted the scale so that it was at 100. One digit of IQ is abstract.
Would you mind explaining how? To show you I'm not just pointing fingers here I'll actually provide an explanation of why I believe your statement was childish.
Your statement repeated words that didn't really need to be repeated, for they would implied. This repetition of implied words would be understandable under one of three scenarios, which I have no evidence to believe would suit you, unless you would clarify. If you were either foreign, an actual child, or in this case specifically you had to repeat yourself so often that the person just wasn't getting the point. None of these cases that would act as a logical reason as to why you would repeat yourself in such a manner, were present, so the only logical reason I can think of as to why you repeat yourself in such a manner is because you are a troll, using sporadic language patterns to get people to respond to you.
Now throughout the course of this (in my opinion) thorough explanation, I may have repeated myself various times, before you begin to call me a hypocrite, I'll explain that this is I believe the third time i tried to tell you I believe you are a troll because of the way you type, so this over repetitive explanation of mine, is actually my attempt at being as specific and thorough as I can, and leaving nothing up to assumption, with everything laid out as clear as I can explain it. Do you now understand why i believe you are a troll, and specifically why i stated that your original comment had childish redundancy? Regardless, can you explain how my statement to your statement, was a childish statement. Again, I'm just over clarifying to leave nothing up to interpretation.
Okay, but I'll also point this out. Your argument is the typically childish "jst leave me alone, I don't care" that a child would says as they flee an argument they don't feel like being apart of. I mean, before I leave you alone, this is a debate site, is it not Srom?
Why do you fear debate? Or before you say, you don't fear it, as I assume you would, why do you flee from my rebuttals, or ignore them all together as you definitely have in the past?
Skimming over this comment, and pressing dispute, or ignoring it all together will further prove, to me at the very least, that you are either a troll, or not mature enough for a debating site.
Okay, but I'll also point this out. Your argument is the typically childish "jst leave me alone, I don't care" that a child would says as they flee an argument they don't feel like being apart of. I mean, before I leave you alone, this is a debate site, is it not Srom?
Yes, it's a debate site but it's gets boring debating about useless stuff that's why I said that. There is nothing wrong with saying to leave me alone.
Why do you fear debate? Or before you say, you don't fear it, as I assume you would, why do you flee from my rebuttals, or ignore them all together as you definitely have in the past?
I don't fear debate. I do my typical routine which is to tell people about God and give them a rational answer and that even includes defending the faith. If you or other people start arguing about the evidence I give out or come up with excuses saying that isn't "evidence" or that doesn't "prove God exists" then I'm done with debating with that person because they don't understand and they are stubborn. It's useless because then the argument will be going on and on for that matter and it simply would be wasting my time like this whole argument.
Skimming over this comment, and pressing dispute, or ignoring it all together will further prove, to me at the very least, that you are either a troll, or not mature enough for a debating site.
I don't skim. I read every single argument that is being presented to me and I reply back. Sorry for not being on for 11 or so days. I was taking a break from this site because it's been boring debating such nonsense and I've been going on another site that actually appreciates my company.
You said you give a rational answer, I beg to differ. Not because of your religion but because of your lack of logic.
You said, you are here to tell people about God, i say that "telling people" is not debating, which brings me to the final thing which is how you claimed that people who don't want to hear your view point are stubborn so you just back out. If you're here to "tell people" you've already created yourself as this wall, that refuses to let any information in, all the while you've got the answers painted on your chest declaring them as if law.
I won't go to deep into this, since you've made it clear you're right no matter what, but I haven't seen or read any of this alleged evidence of yours.
The debate is science vs God, I know Christians who would be appalled that these two topics were even being compared as if they were exclusive of one another, and who choose the side of science, stating something along the lines of science exists because of God. However you chose the side of God, and decided to completely attempt to disprove science. That makes no sense to me, a person who sees with my eye, feels with my nerve endings, hears with my ears, etc, and has used these senses to test the things science puts out as fact.
You said, you are here to tell people about God, i say that "telling people" is not debating, which brings me to the final thing which is how you claimed that people who don't want to hear your view point are stubborn so you just back out. If you're here to "tell people" you've already created yourself as this wall, that refuses to let any information in, all the while you've got the answers painted on your chest declaring them as if law.
That's my job as a Christian is to spread the Gospel so the everyone know's about Jesus Christ. Plus while I'm doing that I'm sowing a seed into the person's heart and God will water it and it will bring forth fruit (meaning that person will become a Christian) I already know a lot of answers to a lot of question to my belief and I've answered it to many people on here even when before you came on here.
I won't go to deep into this, since you've made it clear you're right no matter what, but I haven't seen or read any of this alleged evidence of yours.
Rubbish excuse. I've given lots of evidence, but I'm not going to waste my time to search for when I did give out evidence on this site because it'll be a waste of time knowing that you won't accept it anyway and will come up with excuses. When there is no excuse to not believe in God.
The debate is science vs God, I know Christians who would be appalled that these two topics were even being compared as if they were exclusive of one another, and who choose the side of science, stating something along the lines of science exists because of God. However you chose the side of God, and decided to completely attempt to disprove science. That makes no sense to me, a person who sees with my eye, feels with my nerve endings, hears with my ears, etc, and has used these senses to test the things science puts out as fact.
I choose God because God is the one who made everything including the scientific things such as gravity, physics, and other things (except Evolution). I don't try to disprove science where did you get that idea from? A lot of Christian would choose God first then science next because God is first in everything.
So you won't show me this alleged evidence, even though i am at this exact moment asking for it. You did however brush me off, avoiding showing me any evidence to God's existence, by saying I'm making excuses. That sounds to me like an excuse,=.
What if your alleged evidence was the right seed to sow, would that mean you're not being a good Christian? Sounds like it to me.
You said there is no excuse to not believe in God, and there is one thing I can agree with you on. There is no excuse, but there are various long lists of reasons why one wouldn't. My main reason is.... well a lack of evidence. No one's showing me any.
Will it really be so bad to waste your time, if their is an inkling of a possibility that you could convince another that Jesus is the way?
So you won't show me this alleged evidence, even though i am at this exact moment asking for it. You did however brush me off, avoiding showing me any evidence to God's existence, by saying I'm making excuses. That sounds to me like an excuse,=.
The reason why I don't give out evidence is because whenever I do give out evidence. Almost every non-believer I've debated with said the following statement: "That's not evidence". I can already see that you probably do it as well so there is no need for me to waste my time giving evidence to you.
What if your alleged evidence was the right seed to sow, would that mean you're not being a good Christian? Sounds like it to me.
I've tried multiple times with multiple people. I doubt that you would take my evidence considering I've seen most of your arguments and I can tell you won't accept the evidence I give. And you'll be like every other atheist or non-believer saying, "That isn't evidence".
You said there is no excuse to not believe in God, and there is one thing I can agree with you on. There is no excuse, but there are various long lists of reasons why one wouldn't. My main reason is.... well a lack of evidence. No one's showing me any.
The evidence is all around us. God's Creation, The Bible, massive support of it through science, archaeology, and others.
Will it really be so bad to waste your time, if their is an inkling of a possibility that you could convince another that Jesus is the way?
It would only be a waste of time if I gave you the evidence and you didn't take it and come up with an excuse. Other then that I seriously doubt you'll think Jesus is the Way.
The first thing you said is sending red flares through my brain like crazy. You're not reading what I'm typing. I don't care what other atheists have said, listen to what I'm saying Show me this alleged evidence, then see what I say about it.
You're saying you won't show me any evidence of God's existence because other atheists have dismissed it, I'm saying I'm not one of those atheists, I am myself, and I have not yet seen this evidence to make a judgement on.
Everything else I'm reading is showing me a lack of patience, a lack of dedication, a lack of being a great Christian to be perfectly honest. I ask you why, you spread the word of the Lord? If your answer is that it is your duty, then I am telling you outright you are not doing your duty by withholding information for whatever reason.
If anyone asks for anything about God, you should always answer, despite whatever emotions you may have for that person, despite any past experiences that you've had with that type of people, because no waste of time should be important to a person who's got an eternity of happiness to look forward to by just telling another of Jesus Christ.
So will you show me this alleged evidence, rather than tell me about how other atheists have dismissed it so you're just so sure I will too?
The reason why I don't give out evidence is because whenever I do give out evidence. Almost every non-believer I've debated with said the following statement: "That's not evidence". I can already see that you probably do it as well so there is no need for me to waste my time giving evidence to you.
Okay, so basically what you're doing, is you'll just use this site as a soapbox, and every time we ask you for proof, you won't give us any because we'll dismiss it.
Mate, this is a debating forum. If you bring your viewpoint in here, you should be prepared to back it up with evidence.
Also, I've seen your debates. People don't make excuses, you're the one who fails to see why your evidence doesn't work.
I've already given out evidence. It's up to you to believe it or not. I know this is a debate forum but I'm already tired of debating the same boring thing over and over again. Someone asks for evidence, I give it to them and they end up denying it's evidence. Then we end up arguing over the evidence that is being presented. Same boring old process, and to me it's a dry process to go through. I've had enough of it and therefore won't debate much about this topic until I feel like debating about this anymore.
Yes, they do make excuses, I know the evidence I use out there is the same evidence a lot of Christians use to prove God's existence, or that the Bible is true. We'll keep using it to convert people if we so have to.
Someone asks for evidence, I give it to them and they end up denying it's evidence.
I've read your debates. You give people "evidence", and then they explain why it's wrong. Then you ignore them.
Seriously, that's what you do. Once we prove you wrong, you ignore that, and then claim we're making excuses. We're not. Stop dismissing disputes as excuses.
Yes, they do make excuses, I know the evidence I use out there is the same evidence a lot of Christians use to prove God's existence, or that the Bible is true. We'll keep using it to convert people if we so have to.
It'd be nice if you actually made an honest effort to use better evidence than the type you keep sending to us.
I've read your debates. You give people "evidence", and then they explain why it's wrong. Then you ignore them.
My process is like this, if I give out evidence, and someone starts arguing with me about the evidence and not agreeing that's when I pull out of the debate because they won't understand and it's going to drag on and it will never end. I've done it to the point where I just got bored of debating with the person and trying because they'll never learn.
Seriously, that's what you do. Once we prove you wrong, you ignore that, and then claim we're making excuses. We're not. Stop dismissing disputes as excuses.
You don't prove me wrong for what I say. I just don't debate anymore with people who are going to continue to argue about the evidence, and the arguments will keep coming and it will be a never ending debate. It is an excuse if you don't think it's not enough evidence or if you don't find it convincing.
It'd be nice if you actually made an honest effort to use better evidence than the type you keep sending to us.
The evidence out there is the same there is nothing different. If God showed himself to people, I can guarantee you not everyone is going to convert because a lot of people back then when Jesus was alive they saw what Jesus could do but they never believed.
Dude, if someone argues with you about the evidence, that's part of the debate. You can;t just throw evidence and then expect anyone to believe you right away, especially when the evidence is wrong.
Why does it matter that I don't believe in something supernatural then? Instead of lying about not judging me, why don't you just tell me why it matters?
If you say that God is false, there is no evidence to support that claim
None is needed. It is impossible to prove a negative, hence why the burden of proof rests upon the one asserting the positive (in this case, the person who says god is real).
The reason it is difficult to prove a negative is because proving a negative includes making the assumption that we have all the information we have is not only accurate, but exhaustive, and there are no other factors to be considered.
Perhaps you suffer from Androgen insensitivity syndrome, which in simple terms is resistance to the hormones associated with masculinity. In extreme cases, a person can be completely female from a biological perspective, including all reproductive organs and secondary sex characteristics, while still being genetically male. If you are one of these, your dna test would prove that you are a man, despite your claims and beliefs otherwise.
And that's just a single known phenomenon. Perhaps you are genetically female - currently - but this was the result of an as-yet-unknown retrovirus you were exposed to shortly after conception. In this case, your dna test would prove that you are not a man, but you would still have started out male.
And what about gender? Male and Female are not just biological sexes, but they are also genders. Even if your dna proves that you are biologically female, can you prove conclusively that you are not genderqueer, identifying as male, and hiding this due to social stigmas against it?
'Magic' used to be thought of as God's powers and Darwin, Ptolemy's theories proved true by SCIENCE. Logically as there is no evidence, what you are saying is that this proves that God doesn't exist? Things we couldn't explain before we understand better now, science is not an assumption- but believing God exists is!
An Intelligent Designer seems incredibly possible since our universe is so fine tuned and the laws of thermodynamics can be applied in a sense that supports the existence of a much larger eternal being.
- argument courtesy of lizziexlaura/danny/whoeverelse
This is not a valid argument. One would only expect to find life in a universe that supports it. The fact that we live in a universe that is conducive to life is by no means evidence for an intelligent designer or any other God. The laws of physics are what they are. Would mind proving an evidentiary application of the laws of thermodynamics which supports the existence of a much larger internal being?
Take all the letters from the book War and Peace (all letters from A to Z) ... how many letters are in the book .... how many commas and periods are in the book ... what about the capitol letters vs lower case letters .... once you have all these letters and punctuation gathered ... pour them all into a big box / close and seal the box and shake the box for about 1000 hours (or however long you wish) spill the box of contents onto a gymnasium floor and spread out evenly ........ what are the odds you have that the book War and peace would be intact / in order / all letters in place with proper punctuation and ready for all to read .......... THAT L&G;are the odds that life can accidently emerge from matter alone http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/read-prove-god-exists/
Your analogy ignores the laws of physics and chemistry as well as environmental conditions that would, for the sake of this analogy, encourage the adherence to certain words and grammar rules.
Also, you forget that it doesn't have to form "War and Peace", but rather any legible form. AND that we have an unknown number of tries that could well be up into the trillions.
Science has no evidence that says the theory is right. But the God has the bible, that is real, and that could be an evidence to proof that God is right.
How can we observed what happened 3 billion years ago evolution is bad science because is not proven fact and science means knowledge how is it knowledge if you can't prove evolution to be true?
How can we observe what happened in Genesis? We have the same problem, but different solutions.
Your solution is to trust the word of an ancient book, operating under the assumption that the people who wrote it were divinely inspired by a deity or by angels, neither of which can be demonstrated to be actual entities. You continue to trust this revealed information thousands of years after the fact, despite conflicting religious texts from other parts of the world whose stories are different than yours, but assume yours is right, even though no religious text can be confirmed to be factually or even morally superior to any other.
Unless and until God can be demonstrated to exist and directly inspire the Bible, the text is open to the same level of scrutiny and skepticism as any other such text. Misunderstandings, personal bias, lies, errors in translation, and explanations for misunderstood phenomenons that do not line up with observed reality.
My solution is to trust people who live and speak right now, who document their methodologies and open them up to scrutiny and replication. And most importantly, people who use are willing to change their beliefs/hypotheses/etc. when evidence and observation demand it.
The evidence verifying evolution is SIGNIFICANTLY more reliable than that provided by the Bible. We have seen numerous cases of speciation, why have traced allele frequency variations in countless lifeforms between many generations and populations. We know, historically, that we have personally manipulated countless lifeforms through selective pressure, and have found no reason why natural selection should not work as hypothesized. Evolutionary principles have allowed scientists to track down "missing" species. Evolutionary principles have been used in numerous successful medications and medical treatments, and easily explains why some populations are more or less susceptible to localized diseases and other forms of illness.
But the only reason you site for not believing is that nobody was there. Which is an accusation that believers have to face up to as well.
While I believe in science, I can't eliminate the possibility of a divine creator. It really seems so amazing that we could exist due to a billion coincidences occurring between the big bang and today. Do you really believe that we emerged from the primordial soup and somehow our chromosomes developed and differentiated over time? It is a real stretch isn't it?
Logically, anybody who has a good sense of understanding cannot accept that science is winning not god!
God's existence has come with scientific clues! In the Holy Qur'an there's mentioned a vast number of scientific evidences all of which were written about 1400 years ago! 1400 years ago when nobody was educated nor intelligent enough to discover such an information!
and that's one of the important reasons why god not science
I have said before, something's we can't not see or touch it to know it is there. Yes we can do study's on wind, and air. But faith is something we all have, regardless of what the faith is for. I.e landing a job, or having faith in your self to pass that exam. We have faith in the people around us. Are partners, husbands wife's. We put faith in then everyday. We can not see faith, we can not touch it. But we feel it. God is a feeling inside us. A small voice that tells us if we are doing good or bad. Most of us have ignored that voice so many times. But this voice, the feelings I have right as I have t make a choice, it tells me what is right and what is wrong. We all have this, and if you believe in god as I do, then I know this is gods way of talking to be. I don't need any person no matter on how many years of school that have been in, to tell me to prove that god is real or not. I don't need physical concret proof. I have proof, and it's all around me. It is around everyone, they just need to open up and allow it in.
There is no requisite need for this conflict, however if forced to choose, I will take the side that strives for verification, the side that is willing to change its beliefs when they are proven wrong, the side that has actually provided tangible good and completely changed society ever since agriculture became a thing.
...but how can science make certain assumptions directed towards Creationsm when science itself contradicts its own method (scientific method) by not being able to test it's own hypothesis.
A hypothesis by definition has to be testable, although due to issues of practicality on some subjects this may be conceptually instead directly at any given time. But your statement that science can't test hypothesis is definitively wrong.
I think science and Creationism can work together, but as far as choosing one favorable side, I would have to choose the side that created science/the brains that were not only used to persecute him but still do to this day.
Because who created science??? Man!! Who created man? God. Of course you'll disagree. So tell me what or who created us?? Tell me out origin, and it's proving, and it's origin. Elaborate please.
Because who created science??? Man!! Who created man? God. Of course you'll disagree
Unless you actually prove that god does exist and did create man yes i disagree.
So tell me what or who created us?? Tell me out origin, and it's proving, and it's origin. Elaborate please.
Gladly but first you're asking the wrong question. You presuppose a creator when you ask "WHO" created us instead of "what". And when you say "created" instead of "let to our existence". Until you demonstrate that a) we are a creation and b) that a who (intelligent being) created us it is inaccurate to use this type of language but ill let it slide because its not really that big a deal because i know what you mean.
So since youre asking what created humanity i dont really have to go as far back as the big bang so lets start at the beginning of life. The current leading theory for how life originated on this planet is called abiogenesis. In theory this is how non-life became living over billions of years and under certain conditions. It is believed that this process began in oceanic shallow pools or deep ocean thermal vents where the heat from the vents or sunlight (or both) fueled chemical reactions that gave rise to protein-like structures and very simple self replicating molecules called autocatalysts. Then pretty much from here evolution takes over and life diversifies into more complex single celled organisms like bacteria and plankton, then we can trace this all the way up to pre-historic fish, fish to tetrapods, tectalec, then to reptiles, reptiles to mammals, mammals branching out into rodents, apes, ect and apes to hominids to us. Obviously this is VASTLY oversimplified so dont think this is a textbook full explaination because this isnt even 5% of it but thats more or less how it went to the best of our knowledge. Evolution is accepted as borderline fact (because science cant actually declare facts) and is the basis for all modern biology. Contrary to popular belief there is absolutely no debate over whether or not it occurs, only debate over the different steps and certain interworkings of it. To back up this info i direct you to talkorigins.org which is an evolutions, origin, cosmology, abiogenesis, ect database which has all the data to back this up as well as direct links to the actual peer reviewed published scientific journals and findings. Hope this helped
True. However, I choose to favor the fact that God created everything rather than what most scientist claim. Furthermore, there isn't any form of observation, especially when scientist just like religion scholars base their results off of the same evidence. Science says there was certain mutation in animals and even us -monkeys to humans- but no scientist can prove their claim through observation because no one was there to observe. Observation is apart of the scientific method. Therefore, in theory, science makes claims that don't agree with it's own step by step method.
I choose to favor the fact that God created everything
Did you observe it personally? If you are going to hold one group to a set of standards, then you need to hold yourself to it.
especially when scientist just like religion scholars base their results off of the same evidence.
No they don't. Religious folk often ignore evidence that shows that their beliefs are ignorant. Scientist change their beliefs according to changing evidence.
Science says there was certain mutation in animals and even us
Not JUST mutations. Evolution has numerous mechanisms by which it slowly molds life forms. Anyway, mutations are a viable part of the process as all life forms have them. A human will develop around 30 or so throughout their lives.
-monkeys to humans-
Nobody claims we came from monkeys. We are relatively closely related, but just because I'm related to my cousin doesn't mean one of us descended from the other one.
but no scientist can prove their claim through observation because no one was there to observe.
Ahem....we have observed speciation numerous times, in a variety of life forms, both in labs and in nature.
We can observe it more completely using genetic markers, and, to a lesser extent, fossils.
We have historical evidence that modern dog an cattle breeds and most modern food vegatables were artificially molded into their current forms by thousands of years selected breeding which has a similar effect to what happens with natural selections (except for being focused and faster).
Therefore, in theory, science makes claims that don't agree with it's own step by step method.
The entire theory, from Darwin down to modern studies in genetics and taxonomy are based 100% on observation. What do you think you are talking about?
Just like there is evidence that science offers. There is also evidence in Gods existence. There is far too much order for us and our whole existence to have been formed out of a "Big Bang", out of one single cell that not only created us but every animal and insect; that chaos can produce life and death, for the sun to set and rise, for the perfect atmosphere that we have, for the perfect alignment between our planet and the sun. Far too much order to make claims that it just happened out of no where. No, I will not believe that! Lol If anything, those claims seem more absurd than my faith.
There is far too much order for us and our whole existence to have been formed out of a "Big Bang",
Why? It is that very order that necessitates a big bang. If it wasn't there, we wouldn't be able to trace it back to a single source. If individual aspects of the universe were created wholly independently like the Bible suggests, we would be tracing back multiple independent lines of evidence, instead of one single flow.
out of one single cell that not only created us but every animal and insect
It WASN'T one single cell, it was countless cells over the course of several billion years.
that chaos can produce life and death
I don't understand what you are trying to say here.
for the sun to set and rise,
It doesn't literally set and rise, you know that right? We orbit it, and the physics behind that are well understood.
for the perfect atmosphere that we have, for the perfect alignment between our planet and the sun.
Define "perfect". Of course our conditions are suitable to us, we evolved within them. Anyway, there are hundreds of billions of GALAXIES, each with billions of stars, many of which have multiple planets. Even if only one in 100 trillion planets could give us the conditions we have on Earth, it is practically guaranteed that it has happened numerous times in billions of years our universe has been here.
Far too much order to make claims that it just happened out of no where.
Who says it happened out of nowhere? I've never heard a scientist make that statement.
Lol If anything, those claims seem more absurd than my faith.
That is because you don't understand the claims being made. Every time you severely religious types try to hit scientists with a "gotcha" moment, you have to misrepresent what they are saying. Its like pointing a flash light at your own ignorance.
lol... "evidence for God's existence is the Universe because I don't know how it came to be."
No. That is not evidence. That's actually evidence of flying unicorns. There's 16 sitting next to me right now eating glowing magical carrots.
If anything those claims seem more absurd than my faith.
"The invisible guy in the sky created 10^80 particles in a day" doesn't really hold any merit over "all particles have existed forever, and are expanding and contracting (we have evidence of this) over 10^10^56 years, creating big bangs every time around. We have witnessed planets forming from burnt up bits of star rock. We have evidence of planets forming, yet you chose to ignore it and say "God put it there" is more reasonable. Alright.
Is that not part of the scientific method? To observe and collect. How can one observe evolution of certain species if they were not there. Scientist make the same faith response that Christians do when speaking out their belief.
How can one observe evolution of certain species if they were not there.
That is an awesome question. But, you don't actually care about the answer. Evolution claims that certain things will be observed if it is accurate. We can observe those things. Like, if evolution is true, we should share DNA with primates. When we sequence DNA of humans and primates we see that there is shared DNA and slight differences that came from evolving. Plus, if evolution is accurate, we would see it in the fossil record. We do, so it is observable. I assume you will ignore what I just wrote, but I thought I could attempt to help you.
Scientist make the same faith response that Christians do when speaking out their belief.
Not true. Christian belief requires not thinking about how anything works. Look at how Ken Ham debates: "I know how it was done, God".
"Not true. Christian belief requires not thinking about how anything works."
Extremely false. Is studying certain philosophies and trying to figure out certain questions useful? Of course! There are several job opportunities and learning experiences that can result out of doing that. However, you could spend every second of your entire life trying to understand everything and still won't be able to. There are far too complex theories and studies that will always be a question. The bible says, "what good does it do to gain the whole world and lose my soul." Again, my claim isn't that knowldege isn't useful, obviously it is. Moreover, we will not be able to understand everything. In fact, the more we start to realize, as far as the cosmos are concerned, the more questions are raised; it's an ongoing cycle. Society tries to say, "I don't have it figured out so I'll take it into my own hands." God says, "leave it in my hands, I've already got it figured it out."
Everything you have written so far makes my statement extremely true.
Is studying certain philosophies and trying to figure out certain questions useful? Of course! There are several job opportunities and learning experiences that can result out of doing that. However, you could spend every second of your entire life trying to understand everything and still won't be able to. There are far too complex theories and studies that will always be a question.
I like how you start off with saying that studying stuff is great (and word such that Christianity goes against that). Then, you go on to say that studying stuff is worthless because you will never be able to learn everything. Man, you are so mixed up it is crazy.
The bible says, "what good does it do to gain the whole world and lose my soul." Again, my claim isn't that knowldege isn't useful, obviously it is. Moreover, we will not be able to understand everything. In fact, the more we start to realize, as far as the cosmos are concerned, the more questions are raised; it's an ongoing cycle. Society tries to say, "I don't have it figured out so I'll take it into my own hands." God says, "leave it in my hands, I've already got it figured it out."
So, what you are saying is, asking questions is a bad idea, which means that Christians don't have to think/ask about how things work and my statement is 100% proven by you.
Wow! Even after I tried to repeat myself twice that "it is in fact useful but to a "certain extent", you still go on to try and quote that I said the word, "worthless"? Hmmmmm who is mixed up now. Let me reiterate for the THIRD TIME, IT IS USEFUL! It is very useful BUT to a CERTAIN EXTENT! There is a fine line.
Not getting mad at all. Trust me, I'm only trying to clearly print it in bold that you are misunderstanding my claim completely. Again, it is useful to an extent. Would you agree that the more science discovers, the more questions will be raised?
You know it is a good thing to some extent. Now, imagine if you are wrong about a time when asking questions is bad, and boom science is great.
I don't see how more questions is a problem. It really is less questions. Before we discover a cave, for instance, we can only ask 1 question, "what's over there?", but if you think about it, we weren't actually asking that. We were asking "what can I discover today?", and that question will never go away.
Please explain this contradiction because i see none at all. I side with science, the method that has a centuries old history of being honest, accurate, prolific, and productive. I choose the side that asks questions and seeks answers through a method that removes human error and bias the best it can over a system where one mustnt ask questions and just accept. i choose the side that creates a never ending chain of predictions to make and discoveries to strive for instead of one that makes no predictions and holds us back from exploration. I choose evidence, not blind faith.
Reading the bible and studying it yourself will also raise more questions. Do your homework on the bible as well. However, when you read it, don't approach it one sided. Actually, try to see it from several different angles.
Reading the bible and studying it yourself will also raise more questions.
You're absolutely right. I have read the bible and i do have many questions. How did people live to over 900 years old at a time where the average age was like 35? How did underwater plants survive the pressure from the global flood? Why are there absolutely no records of any mass hebrew slavery in egypt? Why are there no extrabiblical witness testimonies of the resurrection? See these are the types of questions i ask because i dont presuppose that everything im reading is infalliable truth.
Do your homework on the bible as well. However, when you read it, don't approach it one sided. Actually, try to see it from several different angles.
Sure ill try to see whatever metaphor you wanna point out from whatever angle you want me to but at the end of the day a metaphor is just a metaphor. What i care about are the parts of the bible that youre supposed to take literally like genesis and the resurection. And when i read these things the only angle i refuse to read them from is the angle of "what im reading is absolute unquestionable truth". That isnt intellectually honest and that doesnt get us anywhere as far as understanding reality. What you should be doing is reading it and asking questions. Thinking critically. Does this make sense? Does this reflect reality? Does any of this contradict either itself or what we know about history, physics, ect? And when you do that you find that it is not an infalliable book of truth but a book of myths written by ancient peoples attempting to explain the world they lived in and create a rulebook for their society. Nothing more. I urge you to check out the skeptics annotated bible to see what im talking about.
Let's not throw around big words like "honest, accurate, prolific, and productive" with science. Science is a set of tools. Do scientists not lie, disagree, or become counterproductive simply because they using these tools?
The best system to remove human error is to combine reason and faith. Science is clearly limited to the realm of reason. Science does not speak to love, justice, or virtue. It is helpful by revealing how things work, but it cannot tell us how to live well.
Science as a process is itself unbiased. Scientists, those who do science, are still human beings, so of course they can lie. But that doesn't invalidate the scientific method whatsoever. And yes, scientists disagree with each other all the time. That's what progress is. One person producing one set of results, another person producing different results, and then trying to find out what is contributing to the inconclusiveness. Additionally, scientists are not always right. They do not know everything. And yes, they sometimes manipulate the data to support their hypothesis. This is what makes the peer review process so valuable. Should one decide to intentionally manipulate their data, the scientific community will eventually find out through experimental replications, review of the unethical researcher's statistical analysis, or questionable research methods. This is what makes science the best method to understand the world in which we live.
As to your points about love, justice and virtue... those are all human constructs that science is not equipped to deal with nor concerned about. However, science does speak to love.. In that it is most likely due, in part, to a release of oxytocin in the brain.
Let's not throw around big words like "honest, accurate, prolific, and productive" with science. Science is a set of tools. Do scientists not lie, disagree, or become counterproductive simply because they using these tools?
Those are actually pretty basic words but ok ill tone it down for you. Science is the persuit of knowledge through the scientific method. I accept what a scientist tells me if they have the appropriate credentials because basically why should i not? If a geologist studies rock layers his entire life and is telling me that "hey theres no evidence of a flood" then why should i not believe him? Hes an expert. HOWEVER, if youre paranoid about being lied to as i see you clearly are you can cut out the middle man and actually just go straight to the evidence. You dont have to have a scientist explain anything to you, you can just look up the journal of their findings and experiments and read it right there for yourself. Also, if a scientist does lie there are dozens of their peers to review their stuff and show that theyre wrong. Science is self correcting like that in that it is a community of peers attempting to prove eachother wrong. I agree there are scientists who can and do lie or use dishonest tactics but it isnt hard to figure out who the liars are and whos telling the truth if you just look at the raw evidence. And guess what? Creationists always have either zero evidence or take others evidence and bastardize what it means.
The best system to remove human error is to combine reason and faith.
How? Faith is probably the worst thing one could use to determine truth as it is almost always wrong. If you believe things on faith it is because there is zero evidence for them and things that are true typically have evidence for them. So if youre using faith you are literally avoiding the truth. Also how can you combine reason and faith? Theyre polar opposites. Reasonable people follow evidence to conclusions, people with faith do not, they just believe without or in the face of evidence. Theyre entirely incompatable.
Science is clearly limited to the realm of reason.
Why should we believe anything for which there is no reason to? Why should we believe there is even a realm outside of reason to begin with?
Science does not speak to love, justice, or virtue
Thats no its job thats society's job. Morality is an evolving concept. However we actually can trace the evolution of them through history and biological evolution. Morality is linked to science in a few ways.
It is helpful by revealing how things work, but it cannot tell us how to live well
I agree with most of your points, but you should never accept what a scientist tells you just because they are a scientist. Many studies have methodological flaws contained within them or use invalid measures. There is no such thing as a perfect study; they all have flaws. People who read journals are not paranoid about being lied to, they just are skeptical about everything they read or hear. That's actually what makes a good scientist. If everyone accepted everything as fact, just because they heard it from a scientist, the entire scientific process would come to a halt.
Science, in the last 400 years or so, has taken us to distant planets, eradicated some of the most appalling diseases which have faced humanity, mapping the very building blocks of humanity, allowed man to fly, and discovered more and more about the very structure of the universe. It has given us the modern computer on which I am typing these words, the Internet on which I am publishing them and the router by which I am connecting to said Internet. Every single day, we use the fruits of science to make our lives easier. Your television, your car, your telephone: all produced via the tools of science.
And what has religion done in all that time? Nothing of value that I can see. Instead, it has given us war, persecution, mass murder and horror on a scale which defies belief. It has been the force behind some of the most horrific terrorist attacks and conflicts that we have seen in recent times.
Could you be more specific here? Not being able to prove a hypothesis is not in violation of the scientific method; hypotheses remain hypotheses until they can be verified by significant data, and said data verified by peer review. If they were referring to it as a theory when it hadn't been at all vetted, that would oppose the scientific method- but hypotheses do not.
Test their hypothesis through observation. No scientist was there to be able to observe the claim that many make when dealing with evolution of certain species. When dealing with my previous statement, I'm simply asking for which side you would favor. The way I see it, God created man. Furthermore, man created science. Now, man believes more in their own theory than in who created him. Isaiah 55:9 "As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts."
If you're referring to the theory of evolution, you're actually incorrect in several ways- regarding what can be observed, regarding what has been observed, and regarding what needs to be observed to draw conclusions. Numerous observations have been made that support evolution, and none have been observed that actually refute it. I'm not going to present an exhaustive list here, but rather just a couple particular points. Significant genetic drift in the genome of unicellular species have been observed in response to selective pressures that were leveraged against them; this provides a very handy analogue to natural selection.
The mechanism of natural selection and its changes in the genome of various species is not under dispute; this has been proven rather solidly.
This does not constitute proof, per se, of speciation- however, there is some pretty strong evidence for that. The presence of vestigial structures in modern species and their striking similarities to functional organs in related species strongly suggest a common ancestor- and natural selection is a proven mechanism to effect these changes. Furthermore, even the most disparate species on the planet have significant overlap in their genetic code.
Maintaining a direct creationist perspective in light of all of this is therefore fundamentally flawed; it is to assume that god is wasteful, lazy, and unimaginative; vestigial structures represent a drain on the creatures resources while conferring no actual benefit, and a creationist perspective that takes these, as well as genetic overlap into account is basically stating that god did not create species individually, but instead modified each from a basic genetic template.
Basically, maintaining direct creationism requires attributing several qualities to god that most creationists would be opposed to. As such, indirect creationism (God created the first lifeform and used natural selection/evolution as a tool to shape that life into the various forms we're familiar with) is a more rational perspective that still allows a concept of god that is in-line with most theology.
The way I see it, man created God as an explanation for what he did not know. Man later created science as a method to uncover actual explanations for that which is unknown. From that perspective, Isaiah 55:9 is completely irrelevant.
The evolution is only a theory. Not science. Therefore, science cannot correlate with the theory of evolution because the scientific methods claims that it must be observed. I'm simply clarifying.
If anything, your position requires mother faith than my claim that it was God who created everything. Science says it was all am accidental occurrence that produced everything I existence. Science even goes to the extent to make claims that chaos cannot produce order. Explain how a an explosion proceed the sun to set, sun to rise, a perfect living atmosphere for us, humans and al creation on earth. Again, your position requires more faith than mine.
The verse I shared with you does relate in that us as humans on average have only about 70 to 80 years to try and understand everything you possibly can and even then your brain will reach a max, whereas, God has no beginning and has known all things even behind the point of our existence.
'Theory' is a scientific term, and it does not mean what you think it does. A theory represents an idea that is verifiable by all experimental and observational data thus far, makes accurate predictions, and is generally held to be true. When it is still untested, the term 'hypothesis' is used.
And again- evolution has, in fact, been observed in a laboratory environment. Not speciation that I'm aware of, but significant changes in the genome in response to selective pressure. So you're wrong there as well.
It does not, in fact, require any faith to accept this, as the data can be observed and the experiments replicated at will should someone be skeptical. On the other hand, there is zero evidence to back the claim that your god created anything at all- all you have is faith.
As far as 'chaos cannot produce order' you must be referring to the law of entropy. This is a general law that appears to act on a universal level, however it is possible for entropy to decrease within a portion of the system, while the whole still moves towards entropy. You misunderstand the scope at which this all applies.
The sun does not, in fact, either rise or set- this is an illusion generated by the rotation of the earth. The atmosphere is perfect for us because we have evolved within said atmosphere, and as such have adapted to these particular conditions. Life is believed to have originated in the oceans, and it was some time before the ability to survive in our atmosphere directly evolved. The atmosphere was not made for us- the atmosphere in fact acted as selective pressure to steer our evolution towards thriving within our atmosphere.
The verse you shared is absolutely irrelevant from my perspective, because as far as I'm concerned they're simply the words of man. We may have a limited time on this earth to try and understand everything, but we have wonderful tools called 'language' and from that 'writing' that allow us to pass on what we know to subsequent generations. As such, the amount of knowledge I can attain within my 70-80 years is significantly greater than what could be attained within the lifespans of the men who wrote the bible, even if they were assumed to have the same lifespan; all available evidence suggests a much shorter life expectancy. So yes, I can raise myself significantly higher than whoever wrote that verse- I enjoy a much longer lifespan and an immense wealth of available information to absorb within said lifespan.
I would also add- if you're willing to accept that your god can have no beginning, then you accept that it is possible for something to have no beginning. Why, then, is that considered non-applicable to everything else? If it is possible for god to always have existed, it is just as possible for matter and energy to always have existed in one form or another.
Theory is not 100% proven. A "law" is. Therefore, evolution will remain simply just that, a theory.
The words of man, yes, but received from God. Why is it that the bible written over 2,000 years ago is still relevant to this day. Explain, in your words of course, how the bible has foretold certain instances that have occurred in our era.
Although this might be stretching it for you, I'm curious to see how you'll respond and before I continue I'd like to thank you for your insight. My stance is that there is a God and demons (I'm sure you might disagree). However, my belief is that the devil or enemy is smart as well. The way I see it is he's been around for thousands of years and has tricked millions through a variety of different schemes. The bible talks about how he is a manipulator. If I was the devil playing the devils advocate I would try and get people to of course disbelief in the fact that there is a God. I would do everything I could to have humanity look at something else and focus solely on that while at the same time know that if I can get them to believe in anything and everything but God, I've done my job. I would provide evidence, strong evidence at that and disprove the existence in God every way possible. I think the devil has done just that with this generation as well as others. He has consistently manipulated people to follow their own path as well as any other path as long as it's not Christianity. If he can do that then he's done his job successfully. The bible talks about how he is like a lion seeking who he may devour. Just like a lion he studies you, he knows your weakness. The devil knows your personal struggles and has studied you since you were a kid. He knows what pitch to serve you to have you oppose the existence of God. He's been observing you far before you started to observe and study things on your own. He uses different things for different people. For instance why do you think drugs sometimes overrule someone life, pornogrpahy, pride, bitterness, jealousy, anger, even a person's own intelligence. Again, he knows just what pitch to serve according to each person.
Theory is not 100% proven. A "law" is. Therefore, evolution will remain simply just that, a theory.
You're wrong. A 'law' is not 100% proven either. Nothing is proven 100%, except where numerous caveats reducing the scope of the statement are concerned. Furthermore, it is totally fine that evolution remain 'just a theory' because you don't understand what is meant by theory. Theories have already passed significant muster, and are held true until they are refuted- and even then, they are revised rather than discarded in most cases. There is little distinction between a theory and a law insofar as science is concerned. Scientific laws and theories alike have been known to change when new information is uncovered. This, fundamentally, is why science is more reliable than god- because for most religious individuals, their concept and understanding of god is completely non-pliable, and is maintained even when certain aspects are demonstrated to be false. Religious individuals ignore information that is counter to their beliefs. Science, on the other hand, is reformed when information becomes available that is counter to what was previously held to be true.
The words of man, yes, but received from God.
No, the words of man, falsely attributed to a hypothetical god. Even if the christian concept of god was assumed to be true, it's almost certain that the bible has since been corrupted, including passages from men simply trying to push an agenda, and even the word of the devil itself. In several locations the bible warns about severe penalties for those who add to it, remove from it, or modify it- were the bible under some form of divine protection from such influences, those scriptures would be pointless and redundant- again painting the god who these words are attributed to in a negative light. Are you willing to accept that if your god is real, he's also lazy, an idiot, and an irredeemable asshole?
Why is it that the bible written over 2,000 years ago is still relevant to this day.
It isn't, except under extremely heavy interpretation. Would you care to explain how it is?
Explain, in your words of course, how the bible has foretold certain instances that have occurred in our era
The literary equivalent of a fortune-tellers response to a customer using information gained by cold reading. General statements are thrown out based on assumptions that hold true for most of human activity and are bound to come true through some interpretation eventually. Did you have something more specific?
My stance is that there is a God and demons (I'm sure you might disagree). However, my belief is that the devil or enemy is smart as well. The way I see it is he's been around for thousands of years and has tricked millions through a variety of different schemes. The bible talks about how he is a manipulator. If I was the devil playing the devils advocate I would try and get people to of course disbelief in the fact that there is a God. I would do everything I could to have humanity look at something else and focus solely on that while at the same time know that if I can get them to believe in anything and everything but God, I've done my job. I would provide evidence, strong evidence at that and disprove the existence in God every way possible. I think the devil has done just that with this generation as well as others. He has consistently manipulated people to follow their own path as well as any other path as long as it's not Christianity. If he can do that then he's done his job successfully. The bible talks about how he is like a lion seeking who he may devour. Just like a lion he studies you, he knows your weakness. The devil knows your personal struggles and has studied you since you were a kid. He knows what pitch to serve you to have you oppose the existence of God. He's been observing you far before you started to observe and study things on your own. He uses different things for different people. For instance why do you think drugs sometimes overrule someone life, pornogrpahy, pride, bitterness, jealousy, anger, even a person's own intelligence. Again, he knows just what pitch to serve according to each person.
A few things here. Firstly, you'd make a piss-poor devil. If I were the devil, and acting as a deceiver and manipulator, I would not focus on the non-believers; they're already in my pocket. I would instead focus on the believers. I would make it a point to twist and corrupt their religious texts; I would manipulate the oral tradition that the biblical stories were first passed along as, inserting inconsistencies, bigotry, and any manner of other things. I would manipulate the process of the canon to ensure that as little of the word of god as possible would make it in, and that as much as possible that did make it in would be twisted to my own end. I would have followers of christianity taking the paradoxical position of being all about love and tolerance while simultaneously being judgemental, oppressive bigots. I would even go so far as to have them wage war in the name of the (chuckle) Prince of Peace.
Again: As the devil, I would not target non-believers; they'd already be in my pocket. I would specifically target and subvert christianity itself. If the christian concept of god is remotely correct, I can only assume that this is exactly what the devil did.
Secondly- you understand that when you talk about 'providing evidence' what you're really talking about is attributing similar powers of creation, normally associated with god, to the devil- The fossil record is created by the devil, for example. Doesn't much of your faith hinge on the devil being ultimately inferior to god? Because it seems like you're going out of your way to portray him as being equal in capabilities, or at least damned close. Maybe not omnipotent, but close enough. You're also attributing something akin to omniscience to the devil as well.
There are several prophecies that have been fulfilled as well as signs of the end days that the bible mentions. For instance:
War among countries
Famine
Weather (you can even agree that there have been some record setting catastrophes in a small time frame)
The red moon
Prophets that described what looked like huge locusts flying in the air ready for war (helicopters)
The most rebellious generation
Animals mysteriously dying by the thousands at a time
Bible talks about corrupted minds in terms of people twisting the truth.....
I think all of this is crazy in that the bible was written so long ago and yet still relates to our time so precisely.
I think it's good thing that I would make a piss poor devil while you on the other would seem to do just fine. thumbs up You completely went off on your own hypothetical assertion. Before you do that, can you agree that based off of my assertion, you would fit perfectly in what the devil scheme is all about? yes or no
Have occurred regularly throughout human history, predating the Bible. Next!
Weather (you can even agree that there have been some record setting catastrophes in a small time frame)
There are record setting catastrophes fairly regularly, if you narrow down what constitutes a record enough. Weather patterns are not sufficiently out of the ordinary to constitute a fulfillment of any kind of prophecy.
The red moon
Occurs regularly in a cycle of its own.
Prophets that described what looked like huge locusts flying in the air ready for war (helicopters)
Huge interpretation. There are numerous ways one might describe an attack helicopter. "Locust" is not one of these, regardless of the aspect one views a helicopter at. The descriptions provided in revelations of the locusts bred for war do not come close to painting this picture.
The most rebellious generation
Is every generation. Or every other generation, if you will.
Animals mysteriously dying by the thousands at a time
Again, die-offs occur regularly through history.
Bible talks about corrupted minds in terms of people twisting the truth.....
People have always twisted the truth for their own ends.
I think all of this is crazy in that the bible was written so long ago and yet still relates to our time so precisely.
I think it's crazy that these regular occurrences that more or less anyone could predict are treated as divine prophecies. The only exception is a massive stretch.
I think it's good thing that I would make a piss poor devil while you on the other would seem to do just fine. thumbs up You completely went off on your own hypothetical assertion. Before you do that, can you agree that based off of my assertion, you would fit perfectly in what the devil scheme is all about? yes or no.
No. It's easy to say what I would do hypothetically were I in the devil's shoes, as it's easy to see where the greatest potential for damage and deceit are. That doesn't mean I would have any interest in pursuing it. I have no problem with religious individuals, and am known to take up for them at times on this site. I try to act by what I feel is right, and more often than not, my moral compass aligns with religious individuals. There are exceptions, however, and one thing that I cannot suffer is the intentional spreading of misinformation- that is what you're doing, and that is why I oppose you in this exchange fundamentally.
You mentioned several assumption based off of personal opinion and interpretation as well, did you not? There are scientist and researches who try and study such odd occurrences as a career that can't even explain what's happening, but yet YOU can?
I've heard a lot of people say "Well why believe in God over science? I mean you can't prove that he exists, you cant see him. In fact, why serve a God that let's bad things happen. Why is there stillborns?? Why is there unforeseen and unexplainable deaths??? Why did God let this happen to me". Little do they know, they too are putting their faith in something. Rather it be rationalism, which is a belief that is based on reason or knowledge. Or even a faith in science. Moreover, f you think about it Science honestly does EXPLAIN a lot of things and will continue to explain more and new things. However science, like reason does not have an ANSWER to EVERYTHING. In fact, science actually raises more unanswered questions. Scientist as well as rationalist will admit they don't know everything. So at the end of the day, it's a contradiction for them to say "why believe in a something that can't doesn't have evidence". My response is this: evidence or not people will still have a choice to make. Jesus was here on this earth (historical scholars can admit there was a man named Jesus) and yet people still didn't believe in him. In fact, they wanted to kill him! It really goes to show that even when providing such evidence, people will doubt. People will always doubt. At the end of the day I choose to believe even when I don't know everything, no one does. Even when I don't know why God did what he did, or why God is doing what he's doing; I know WHO I'm putting my faith in and not WHAT. My confidence isn't in some proposition or reason, it's in God. He says he will take care of the birds in the air, how much more will he take care of me. I'm not saying science is irrelevant bc it's VERY RELEVANT and imperative, but I will not live a life trying to understand every little thing because the fact is, I won't! I never will!
Many. Rather than give you a laundry list, I'll put out on particular example:
Constant Equivocation regarding the terms 'theory' and 'hypothesis.'
There are scientist and researches who try and study such odd occurrences as a career that can't even explain what's happening, but yet YOU can?
There are scientists researching particular hypotheses within greater theories- such as the field of epigenetics as it pertains to the greater theory of evolution. I'm not touching on those- I'm simply speaking to those things that are observable and generally held to be true.
I've heard a lot of people say "Well why believe in God over science? I mean you can't prove that he exists, you cant see him. In fact, why serve a God that let's bad things happen. Why is there stillborns?? Why is there unforeseen and unexplainable deaths??? Why did God let this happen to me". Little do they know, they too are putting their faith in something. Rather it be rationalism, which is a belief that is based on reason or knowledge. Or even a faith in science.
These questions do not represent putting faith in something- they represent questioning extremely visible disparities between how god is described and the way the world actually is. All of the questions above are reasonable, and the existence of the phenomena that drive these questions serve as tangible evidence that the current state of the world is fundamentally incompatible with an omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent god. In other words, god as described by christianity cannot exist. So either there is no god at all, or the christian concept of god is wrong. How can you dispute that? That's not a matter of faith- it's a matter of reasoning. It only becomes a matter of faith when individuals believe in something that there is no rational evidence to support- and there are most certainly cases of atheists who demonstrate faith in things that lack evidence. Asking those questions alone, however, does not represent faith in anything.
Rationalism and belief in science do not represent faith, because they are not things that are arbitrarily believed in- they are things that people believe in because they can generally held to be true; they are in-line with what we all can observe to some extent, and moreover they can be used to make accurate predictions. You mentioned 'weather' as one of the prophecies god put forth in the bible. We are able to predict weather with significant accuracy despite a general lack of precision in our findings. Wouldn't that put science on par with god, at least in that respect?
Moreover, f you think about it Science honestly does EXPLAIN a lot of things and will continue to explain more and new things. However science, like reason does not have an ANSWER to EVERYTHING. In fact, science actually raises more unanswered questions. Scientist as well as rationalist will admit they don't know everything. So at the end of the day, it's a contradiction for them to say "why believe in a something that can't doesn't have evidence".
No, it's not a contradiction at all. That question represents skepticism- a lack of faith, and requiring some form of evidence. The only way that a scientist could contradict his or her own methodology would be to believe in something that has no evidence.
My response is this: evidence or not people will still have a choice to make. Jesus was here on this earth (historical scholars can admit there was a man named Jesus) and yet people still didn't believe in him. In fact, they wanted to kill him! It really goes to show that even when providing such evidence, people will doubt. People will always doubt. At the end of the day I choose to believe even when I don't know everything, no one does.
Non sequitur. The people in question don't necessarily doubt the existence of a man named Jesus- they doubt the authenticity of the claims attributed to him. Even if a man named Jesus did exist as an informal leader of an offshoot of judaism, his very existence does not lend any credence to his claims of divinity.
Even when I don't know why God did what he did, or why God is doing what he's doing; I know WHO I'm putting my faith in and not WHAT. My confidence isn't in some proposition or reason, it's in God. He says he will take care of the birds in the air, how much more will he take care of me.
No. You know WHAT you are putting your faith in- your particular religions concept of god. You do not, in fact, know god- such is evident by the content of your posts in this exchange. The concept of god that you have faith in is fundamentally incompatible with the state of the world. Claiming that you can understand god is pure hubris, of an order far greater than that committed by any scientists. As for taking care of the birds? You mean the way he took care of all of these?
I'm not saying science is irrelevant bc it's VERY RELEVANT and imperative, but I will not live a life trying to understand every little thing because the fact is, I won't! I never will!
Nobody is saying you should, though I can think of few nobler impossible causes than striving to learn everything. That said, I'll leave off here. You are welcome to your faith and I won't question it further, so long as you aren't attacking science and knowledge. Perhaps I misinterpreted your prior postings somewhat and was a bit overzealous in my responses.
No, there is a scientific theory of evolution. Therefore, science. Therefore, science cannot correlate with the theory of evolution because the scientific methods claims that it must be observed.
This is actually sort of accurate. But, the original premise is false, so it doesn't apply. The theory of evolution that science has is far more complicated than you give it credit for. I don't even think your idea of evolution matches with what science describes.
I'm simply clarifying.
You are simply wrong.
If anything, your position requires mother faith than my claim that it was God who created everything. Science says it was all am accidental occurrence that produced everything I existence. Science even goes to the extent to make claims that chaos cannot produce order. Explain how a an explosion proceed the sun to set, sun to rise, a perfect living atmosphere for us, humans and al creation on earth. Again, your position requires more faith than mine.
We have an explanation for that, does that mean you agree that you are wrong about God?
The contradiction that you see only comes from thinking that science can only make a hypothesis about the one event. What science does is make hypothesis about the parts of Creation. One hypothesis is that amino acids can form spontaneously. So, you create a test that does just that and find out that amino acids could form from separate molecules. So, you can test hypotheses even if the event has already happened.
Plus, you can take what Creationists believe and check if it violates physics.
Evolution has been observed already, you lose. Some species evolve faster than others. There are lizards that have evolved and you can compare the 2 new types of lizards together and find that they have changed.
Again,
You never made an original claim actually. You wrote an indecipherable message that I had to figure out.
my main claim is that scientist must observe according to the scientific method.
That is different from what you wrote. You wrote that a hypothesis can't be tested. A hypothesis is only part of the overall story and you put them all together to get the full story.
No scientist was able or will be able to OBSERVE evolution.
Evolution is not a hypothesis. Evolution has different requirements. Each requirement is a hypothesis. Those have been tested and observed, like mutations.
Evolution has not been observed. Not one scientist or scholar has seen the mutation of any specie. Why? Because it would literally take hundreds to thousands of years to occur.
You're right, evolution is a theory. A theory and only a theory, hence, "The Evolution Theory". So you're telling me you belief firmly in a "theory".
Not one scientist or scholar has seen the mutation of any specie.
False.
Because it would literally take hundreds to thousands of years to occur.
False.
You're right, evolution is a theory. A theory and only a theory, hence, "The Evolution Theory". So you're telling me you belief firmly in a "theory".
Yes, and you are incredibly stupid for continuing with the "just a theory" defense that even idiots have abandoned. Please tell me why you don't believe in the theory of gravity.
If you want explanations of why your statements are false I would be glad to help, but I doubt you do.
If you look at the concept of what you believe in and how/why you believe what you believe, you'll see that you put more faith in what man says is true. Science also says that we can only see a certain amount of colors with our human eye. That not only raises the question of what else is out there, but what is out there that has been covered up by man (theories, conspiracies, etc). You can admit as well as I can that we as humans don't know everything. We can have great detailed description and evidence, but at the end of the day, the results are all gathered by man. Therefore, you choose to put your faith in what you can see and even that is limited according to "science" as well as put your faith in man made theories and assumption, which is flawed because man is imperfect. Fact is, you have faith. Your faith is in what only you can understand and perceive, but you are also limited in understanding bc there are things in which you can't explain. You out faith in what is limited. I put my faith in a perfect and unlimited being.
I don't like how you worded this sentence because I feel you don't care what I write. I already explained how you are wrong about observing evolution. In biological labs scientists have sequenced the DNA of bacteria, waited for it to mutate, and resequenced the DNA and observed mutation, so you are wrong there. And, each species does not need millions of years to evolve. Evolution occurs when the environment changes. If the change in environment is significant enough change can happen rapidly. Plus, if the species can reproduce very quickly more change can be introduced and selected for. There is no reason why there can't be a species that has evolved in a human lifetime. Unless, your definition of evolve is wrong.
If you look at the concept of what you believe in and how/why you believe what you believe, you'll see that you put more faith in what man says is true.
This is not true at all. We believe in the same thing, but you also believe in a sky fairy that can't be seen at all. You have a belief on how the universe started, and I have a belief on how the universe started. You have a belief on how life exists, and I have a belief on how life exists. You believe in a supernatural wizard, and I don't. Therefore, less faith required by me.
Science also says that we can only see a certain amount of colors with our human eye. That not only raises the question of what else is out there, but what is out there that has been covered up by man (theories, conspiracies, etc). You can admit as well as I can that we as humans don't know everything. We can have great detailed description and evidence, but at the end of the day, the results are all gathered by man.
This is a ridiculous notion. Seeing as you haven't actually discussed God at all and only focus on the Christian belief system I will have to assume you are a Christian and point out to you that the Bible only exists because a man wrote it, so you are relying on man to have transcribed God correctly.
Therefore, you choose to put your faith in what you can see and even that is limited according to "science" as well as put your faith in man made theories and assumption, which is flawed because man is imperfect.
It is interesting that you believe that God created our eyes, yet you still feel compelled to give science credit. Join us. Come to the science side. We have cookies.
Fact is, you have faith. Your faith is in what only you can understand and perceive, but you are also limited in understanding bc there are things in which you can't explain.
Same problem for you.
I put my faith in a perfect and unlimited being.
But, because you have a limited understanding of everything, you have no idea how a perfect and unlimited being would act. Therefore, you have more faith because you need faith to believe in God, plus you need faith to believe that you can even imagine God.
Another example besides the lizards are certain species of flys that we have watched evolve right before our eyes because they have short enough life spans to allow for speciation to occur in our own lifetimes.
You are right. No scientist will ever be able to observe macro evolution. That's because evolution takes millions of years to occur and the human life span is not that long. This does not in any way make the theory of evolution unscientific. Rather, the theory of evolution is based entirely on observations; from the Darwin's finches to genetic markers. I think where you may be misguided is your concept of what a theory is. A theory is derived from a set of many, many experiments (all of which contain testable hypotheses), and it is used as a framework to explain the results. A theory doesn't need to be observed directly for the scientific community to consider it valid. As long as there is enough evidence supporting the theory, the scientific community will consider it to be a logical explanation for how things work and why we observe one thing instead of another. Moreover, theories have the power to make predictions about the world, and the theory of evolution is no exception. Darwin successfully predicted the existence of Morgan's sphinx moth of Madagascar more than 40 years before it's discovery using his theory of evolution as the theoretical framework for his hypothesis.
Now i don't know if there is or isn't a god. because i have never seen, touched or have herd him in my whole life. but i have seen, herd and touched science . and i strongly believe in science. but if god is real, were is he? because i don't see him. ill believe it when i see it. there are no facts to prove he is real. what the bible? some book someone found? the bible is just an excuse for people who didn't know how the world came to be.
There are a list of things that you have never seen, touched, or felt that I'm sure you believe in. I'm assuming that you put your trust in evidence and only evidence alone?
What else is there? What if you were on trial for a murder which you did not commit. Would you want the jury to come back with a guilty verdict because they had a gut feeling about it, despite the evidence for your innocence?
What else is there? What if you were on trial for a murder which you did not commit. Would you want the jury to come back with a guilty verdict because they had a gut feeling about it, despite the evidence for your innocence?
if u support god u must surely think he is the one who created everything even u .ok how do u live oxygen for breathing oxygen is related to science then u say god makes u live not science that is oxy.then hold your breath for 5 mins can u hold.why cant u? bcz no oxygen but god is present everywhere he could help u right.so science helps
it's undoubtedly science only because science proves everything that is acceptable and real.. in my opinion it's not like god which no one has proved of his being or not being there and it's not acceptable and true.. see when a person's beloved tells him/her lies or he wants to verify it doesn't he first believe on what he saw before eyes because it can't be false.. similarly i don't understand how people can believe on the thing GOD which they have not seen until now..
Then I think I should ask god how to create an arc reactor or a fission reactor lol this is just insane to believe in god I mean I believed in science n now I'm successful in my life.
I find Science a bit more reliable because it can explain a lot. It makes more sense to me, even if it contradicts itself. I find it a bit more understandable and more explainable. It seems that there can't always be an answer for everything, but Science gets closer to answers than a supernatural being does to me.