Science vs Religion; The ultimate showdown of human origin?

1. 61

   Steven S Phillipsposted 9 years ago

   No doubt, yes it is. The seeds of all species designed were planted long ago, long before JC. Forget man's re-invention of religion and the bible (these are institutions with all the faults of humanity-power and money-which exist on a larger scale today). Mostly hear say.. The Bible was written many centuries after the death of JC. We must get well beyond the sterotype implications of good versus evil and focus the design of "systems". We as in nature, the universe, and people with very complex "systems". Any systems of a very complex design do not happen randomly as evolutions defines. Complex systems must be designed, whether the creator is still live or not. If I throw a rock in a field, 200 billion years from now it will still just be a rock, not a living species. There is a grand design to life. The grand design specifics states the ability to evolve. That was part of the design by God. Evolutions, therefore, is not against religion.

   replyreport
   1. 59

      janesixposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Things naturally self-organize all the time from less complex to more complex system. Only due to the laws of nature. Look at a snowflake. Or atoms into more complex molecules. No need for a designer.

      replyreport
      1. 85

         HeadlyvonNogginposted 9 years agoin reply to this

         Yes, I know that's the stock answer. But we have to keep in mind all the things at play here. There are natural laws that when the elements come into contact, become order out of chaos. Become organized systems. Whatever those laws are, we still don't know what causes them, make things behave certain ways. Sound familiar? And what it makes those things do is become stuff. That's either a fantastical accident that happens over and over again because of those laws, or it's deliberate. I vote B.

         replyreport
         1. 96

            wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

            "Whatever those laws are, we still don't know what causes them, make things behave certain ways."
            
            Correct.  Which is why the only rational vote is "I don't know". 
            
            (Although the "accident" happened only once, in the BB, and may or may not have been an accident at all - it might have been as inevitable as a dropped ball falling to the earth.)

            replyreport
            1. 59

               janesixposted 9 years agoin reply to this

               I like the idea over the big bang-big crunch rebounding universe theory. All the laws are retained, all the energy and mass is conserved throughout. It makes more sense to me than a universe from nothing. An eternal cycle.

               replyreport
               1. 80

                  Slarty O'Brianposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                  Read Roger Penrose's alternative to BB. Try looking up Aeons with his name attached.

                  replyreport
               2. 96

                  wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                  Actually, I do too.  So it was with interest when I read that someone was proposing that dark energy was the key to bringing about the "big crunch", leading to the next BB.  This makes more sense to me than anything else; a one time event is always hard to swallow.  Much more likely to be either infinite or zero - if it can happen once it can (and has) happened a lot more than that in most cases.
                  
                  Total lack of evidence, though - just a hypothesis that the guy thought was worthy of research.

                  replyreport
            2. 85

               HeadlyvonNogginposted 9 years agoin reply to this

               What if Edwin Hubble was satisfied with, "I don't know" when he noticed how everything was moving away from us? We wouldn't then have the big bang. Yes, I agree more people should be less reluctant to simply acknowledge they don't know. But really, let's be smart about this and not be so quick to apply restrictions prematurely.
               
               If you take all the data, and use some of that imagination we have, you just might come up with something tangible that fits in all the right ways. And then begins to answer questions when plugged in. Now for the obligatory Einstein quote ...
               
               “Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we now know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand.”
               
               Exactly. Sorry to do it, but it's right on point, he's so damn smart, and so damn right. Delusion isn't just the bane of the religious. There's a delusion in science community as well, sometimes coined "the science delusion", that's caused some to have totally forgotten this bit and paint themselves into a corner of never learning anything new. It's a sad state of affairs considering all the people who have the resources and opportunity to be teaching us new things have an ideology that's sitting on top of them, rendering them utterly useless. Makes me want to just break down and cry to think about it. Meanwhile, I can barely get anyone to listen so that maybe the people who can will try some new ideas and chase some new rabbits, so to speak. But, then again, as history illustrates over and over again. We're humans. That's what we do. We muck things up, make mistakes, then makes the same ones again, over and over, all while thinking we've finally figured something out this time. I guess it's ultimately inevitable. Sad. Figures.

               replyreport
               1. 96

                  wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                  Well, I can certainly agree that imagination encompasses all knowledge (or could - we haven't imagined everything possible yet).  The problem is deciding what is real and what is not, and I just do not find your limited data and imagined possibilities to be of a sufficiently high probability to assign "real" to them.  You make too many unsubstantiated assumptions and ignore too many facts (and possibilities) for my taste.
                  
                  It does not, of course, mean you are wrong, just that I find the reasoning and logic insufficient to accept the conclusions as true.  As Jane said, there are just too many alternative causes for what you have found; reasons that you seem to dismiss out of hand just to keep to the god theory.  That's always a great danger when dealing in the far past, were facts are few and far between and IMO reason and logic just cannot fill the gap sufficiently.  The result is acknowledged ignorance, and that's OK with me - there are a great many things in the past that we will NEVER know.
                  
                  I guess that "it fits" just isn't enough to say "it's right".

                  replyreport
                  1. 85

                     HeadlyvonNogginposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                     Hey, by all means. Remain skeptical, always. I don't want my ideas accepted. I want them challenged. Where I have a problem is when it's deemed untrue, but with no reason given as to how that conclusion was reached. Basically I'm told it's untrue because I'm a believer and that's just how we roll, apparently.
                     
                     But I do want to make one thing clear. I'm not doing anything "just to keep to the god theory". I keep the god theory as long as I find it to be the most applicable, most probable, most logical, of all the potential answers. It has earned it's spot. It's not because i prefer it.
                     
                     There are many times where logic and reason is all we have to fill in the gaps. It's those or nothing. Given enough data, they're adequate. And you can, much like scientific discovery, continue the hunt for answers with a good hypothesis. Use reason and logic to reach this conclusion, which is consistent with this data. Now, make a prediction. If this explanation is true, then this should be true too. Then look. If it's true, it doesn't mean it's a fact, but it does mean it remains consistent. The more accurate predictions created, the more probable the answer is right, or at least closer to being right. And you've gained new knowledge and insights in the process.

                     replyreport
   2. 96

      wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Can you support any of these bald statements, or are you merely stating unsupported opinions disguised as fact?
      
      Can you provide proof that all complex systems must be designed by an intelligence?
      
      Can you provide proof that there is a grand design to life?  That the design specific states the ability to evolve?
      
      Can you prove the design was by a god, any god at all?  If so, can you prove it was provided by YOUR god?
      
      Can you even provide proof that the theory of evolution is random rather than the cause and effect rules everyone else views it as?

      replyreport
   3. 60

      mishpatposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Who or what is JC?

      replyreport
2. 65

   steve8millerposted 9 years ago

   All one has to do is be good. It is possible to be a man of science and be good. It is possible for a man of religion to be good. It is possible for a spiritual man to be good. If you believe in evolution then you should have no problem signing up for the 10,000,0000 dollar vaccine to keep you alive when the rich decide to create a virus and unleash it on everyone who cannot afford the vaccine.
   
   Why? Because they are at the top of their power and control and anything will have to be done in order to maintain those elite bloodlines. The theory makes sense if you are a powerful Godlike creature. If it was true bunnies would be gone, and monkeys would not exist. There is no evidence of anything changing from one creature into another. I used to believe it too until I read a few more books and put down the remote control to the television.

   replyreport
   1. 85

      HeadlyvonNogginposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Just curious about one thing regarding the rich taking out the poor scenario. If you're at the top, and you get rid of everyone you're above, is being at the top really meaningful anymore? Isn't what made you significant how different you are when compared to the 'unwashed masses'?
      
      I'm so dark I'm going to get rid of all the light. Well, genius, now everything's dark and there's nothing significant about your 'darkness' anymore. You got rid of what made you "special".

      replyreport
   2. 59

      janesixposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      All one has to do is be good. It is possible to be a man of science and be good. It is possible for a man of religion to be good. It is possible for a spiritual man to be good. If you believe in evolution then you should have no problem signing up for the 10,000,0000 dollar vaccine to keep you alive when the rich decide to create a virus and unleash it on everyone who cannot afford the vaccine. >> random conspiracy theory
      
      Why? Because they are at the top of their power and control and anything will have to be done in order to maintain those elite bloodlines.>> more random conspiracy theory
      
      The theory makes sense if you are a powerful Godlike creature. If it was true bunnies would be gone, and monkeys would not exist. There is no evidence of anything changing from one creature into another. I used to believe it too until I read a few more books and put down the remote control to the television.>> I'd love to see the titles of those books

      replyreport
3. 51

   carlos gildingposted 9 years ago

   yes I believe it is but you have to understand faith and science have to do with history and going through the time periods you can have mixed emotions ,feelings or ideas . First two things you have to take a glimpse at would be the bible and the dinosaurs ,the bible evolved and so did  the creatures so some may believe some may not but that's based on your religion.

   replyreport