Religion vs Science debate: bring it in here
- Thread starter James Snover
- Start date
I haven't even used my knockout arguments yet. We could start discussing the flaws in radiocarbon dating and the misrepresentation of evidence or dismissal of evidence that doesn't fit the mainstream paradigm which the scientific community is so comfortable doing. Or... what good old Darwin's daddy and James Smithson the founder of the Smithsonian have in common.
If you dislike a particular scientific theory and want to disprove it, you need only do one thing: take a specific prediction made by the theory and demonstrate via experiment that the prediction does not agree with observation.
Scientists make such attempts day in and day out as they conduct their research.
Isn't it amazing then that big bang has survived 60+ years of rigorous scientific scrutiny on the part of thousands, if not millions, of collaborating scientists all eager to make a name for themselves (disproving a well-established theory is a fast track to notoriety)?
Evolution has survived 150+ years of this.
.
Scientists make such attempts day in and day out as they conduct their research.
Isn't it amazing then that big bang has survived 60+ years of rigorous scientific scrutiny on the part of thousands, if not millions, of collaborating scientists all eager to make a name for themselves (disproving a well-established theory is a fast track to notoriety)?
Evolution has survived 150+ years of this.
.
Last edited:
Last edited:
If your point is that a scientific theory failed and is no longer considered valid, and that by association all scientific theories are invalid, then your point is invalid.
Theories get disproven. Some get strengthened. That's how the scientific method works: if you're right, it gains strength based on observation and empirical gathering of evidence. If your theory is wrong, and you discover it first, you are bound to release those findings yourself. If it is proven false by others, you, as a scientist, are bound to look at the opposing work and say, "Yep, I was wrong."
Just saying "Hey, your theory is wrong because it isn't supported by this book I adhere to!" is not sufficient proof.
Theories get disproven. Some get strengthened. That's how the scientific method works: if you're right, it gains strength based on observation and empirical gathering of evidence. If your theory is wrong, and you discover it first, you are bound to release those findings yourself. If it is proven false by others, you, as a scientist, are bound to look at the opposing work and say, "Yep, I was wrong."
Just saying "Hey, your theory is wrong because it isn't supported by this book I adhere to!" is not sufficient proof.
Mr.Bolt-on said:
I challenge you to fully and clearly state your point because I know you don't have one. And anything you whip out of your ass won't specifically relate to or challenge anything I've posted in this thread.
.
I'm assuming "The Lord" to you is the christian god.
With that being the case:
Why and how could you possibly love the concept of the christian god?
He is either malevolent or woefully impotent. Since all of christian scripture teaches he is omnipotent, omniscient and all powerful and since believers typically believe whatever this, their favorite book says, there is only one conclusion that can be drawn; the christian god is malevolent. If you believe the religion you are nothing more than a pawn in a silly game between your god and one of his other "failed" creations. Your life is no more significant to your lord than a simple wager.
You are supposed to believe that you are the sniffling, unworthy flawed creation of this god and if you don't make him happy you'll get it good.
You loving this "god" despite all of this is the same as stockholm syndrome of people held hostage by human psychopaths.
Last edited:
I challenge you to fully and clearly state your point because I know you don't have one. And anything you whip out of your ass won't specifically relate to or challenge anything I've posted in this thread.
.
Nothing you've posted is challenging.
No, Krauss actually doesn't have a theory, or at least not what I was talking about. Krauss's Idea that Dark Energy started the Universe is not yet a theory. Of course that doesn't stop overly excited atheist from claiming that Dark Energy is nothing. They want people to change their view of nothing, so that we can accept that nothing started the Universe.
That's not how theories or science work.
Completely agree.
That is totally not my point.
Got a link to this?
You say, "They want people to change their view of nothing, so that we can accept that nothing started the Universe."
Why would "they" want that? What possible purpose would it serve? The existence or absence of dark matter/dark energy is not a religious debate, it's purely an exploration underway in a particular branch of astrophysics. The theorists working on it aren't even asking themselves where religion would come in to this, and religion is not even encompassed in the scope of the theory.
You say, "They want people to change their view of nothing, so that we can accept that nothing started the Universe."
Why would "they" want that? What possible purpose would it serve? The existence or absence of dark matter/dark energy is not a religious debate, it's purely an exploration underway in a particular branch of astrophysics. The theorists working on it aren't even asking themselves where religion would come in to this, and religion is not even encompassed in the scope of the theory.
http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_M._Krauss
To prove that God is not necessary.
Nothing more than to prove where the Universe came from. Krauss however is a borderline militant atheist.
To dispell the myth of any religion, and free the minds of millions. Of course this is just a trade off from the research.
It isn't a religious debate in the terms of an average debate. One cannot overlook the implications of the theory. Although religion is not a part of the theory, it is directly involved. By directly involved I mean to point out the militant atheist who make it a point as to what they are doing. Read their works, and you will blatantly see it's a battle concerning the concept of God and the Universe. They even openly admit it.
I started one of my post with IMO, I will tell you what I believe and if you say that it's wrong, then that's what you think. You can lead a horse to water but can't make him drink. I still love jesus
:fart:
Attending a church is great, but a requirement for my salvation? NO. I am probably the least religious person on here, but I love Jesus and have a relationship with him. I know he's the savior and fully trust in him. I hate religion.
Attending a church is great, but a requirement for my salvation? NO. I am probably the least religious person on here, but I love Jesus and have a relationship with him. I know he's the savior and fully trust in him. I hate religion.
Of course not, but its wise to consider the source of information which often times an individual assumes said source is out for their best interest. At face value the fact that all life on earth shares genes seems to SUGGEST we originated from the same source but its doesn't prove we originated from fish reptiles 400 million years ago.
Mr.Bolt-on, would you mind not pretending that you know and understand what Lawrence Krauss is saying when he lectures about a universe from nothing? Would you also mind not claiming to know why he is doing the work he is doing (mainly because your claim is wrong, again)?
Before I informed you, you were completely wrong about his version of nothing.
:lol:
You're one silly character.
.
Before I informed you, you were completely wrong about his version of nothing.
:lol:
You're one silly character.
.
Users who are viewing this thread
