- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.
The only parts of science that religion contradicts are the ones that fall under evolution, which has not been proven. The only way that you could possibly say that the Bible says that the world is flat is if you called out the use of the poetic phrases 'the ends of the earth', 'the corners of the earth', etc. which are POETIC PHRASES. In fact, the Bible makes references to paleontology, geology etc. that were unproven by science until within the last century or two.
The only people to justify God in that way are the over-vocal idiots who scream about the evils of science and give Christianity a bad name.
If you believe in God and the Bible, you should believe that He doesn't have to follow scientific laws -- an omnipotent being can, by definition, do whatever it wants. Also, "All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness," means that everything in the Bible is true. The lies that people say in dialogue may not be true, but it's true that they said them. Jesus taught in parables, but he always said when something was a parable.
That wasn't his question -- he was asking where the first matter in the universe came from. It has been scientifically proven that the universe had a beginning, which means that there was a time before the universe in which there was no matter. It's impossible to create something from nothing, so therefore the universe itself is scientifically impossible. That means that the universe had to have been created through something other than science.
As for where God came from, God exists outside of time and has no beginning.
I'm okay with people celebrating it, but there's no real reason to. The only reason Columbus was important was because he tried to go to India and hit another continent on the way. Lief Erikson was the first European to go to America, and is therefore more deserving of a national holiday. Also, Columbus enslaved the Native Americans and forced them to mine gold, despite the fact that there was no gold to mine where he landed.
The difference is in no way superficial -- I believe in micro evolution, because we have observed it. However, there is no proof that it's even possible for speciation to occur, meaning that macro evolution is still unproven.
Also, most religions believe that their god created the universe, and state the way in which he/she/it/they did so. Evolution's tenet of genetic variation through natural selection goes against many of these, including the Genesis account, and is therefore incompatible with their religion.