Why must science preclude religion?

[Provider]

do you really think that the only people that do research are about anti-creation? i have seen lots of "scientific" research papers and books that are for creation.

 

[aircooled]

Science is factual. Religion is a belief.

 

[Provider]

pick a side and flip a coin and you can find all the "scientific" info you need.

 

[Marshallj]

Originally posted by: Provider
do you really think that the only people that do research are about anti-creation? i have seen lots of "scientific" research papers and books that are for creation.

No you haven't. Those are pseudo-scientific papers. Most people can see right through that. When I look at that type of "research", their religious bias is clear. They're attempting to promote their relgious views by giving them a scientific look. But anyone who is familiar with reading research would see that the evidence they use is not valid, and still relies on that one ingredient that all christians seem to have- blind faith.

 

[kranky]

Science and religion aren't in opposition. There are scientists who don't buy the claim of evolution.

The whole "origin of life" issue - regardless of which side you are on - comes down to a faith-based opinion. I personally believe that there is no way life arose from nothing. Nor do I believe all species evolved from some primordial soup. Life is just far, far too complex to be explained away by lucky evolution. Of course, I can't prove God created life, but from everything I've learned and observed that makes more sense than a unbelievably long series of unbelievable coincidences.

On the other hand, people who believe in evolution have no proof either. Of the billions of fossils known, they can't identify any which are "transitional" ones. Evolution is in direct opposition to the law of entropy (systems tend towards disorder) and there are no examples in nature that I know of where the law of entropy did not apply.

 

[Looney]

Originally posted by: Provider
pick a side and flip a coin and you can find all the "scientific" info you need.

Funny how your attention is selective to what you want it to be... similar to all the other religious whackjobs out there.

 

[Marshallj]

Originally posted by: kranky
Evolution is in direct opposition to the law of entropy (systems tend towards disorder) and there are no examples in nature that I know of where the law of entropy did not apply.

This is an often used, but incorrect assertion. Evolution is NOT in direct opposition to entropy. Entropy contends that energy always tends to move towards disorder (waste, such as heat and radiation). Humans waste more energy than any other lifeform.

 

[Howard]

Originally posted by: Provider
do you really think that the only people that do research are about anti-creation? i have seen lots of "scientific" research papers and books that are for creation.

Let's see some that aren't flawed.

 

[Looney]

Originally posted by: Provider
do you really think that the only people that do research are about anti-creation? i have seen lots of "scientific" research papers and books that are for creation.

LOL yeah, so called 'creationist science' LOLOLOL

 

[przero]

Marshallj - and the "transitional fossils" are where?

 

[Marshallj]

Originally posted by: przero
Marshallj - and the "transitional fossils" are where?

Being discovered all the time. It's just that you creationists refuse to believe what they are.

 

[Eli]

Haven't read the thread, but basically..

Religion says "Believe and I will show you,"

Science says "Show me and I will believe,"

 

[Looney]

Religion says "Believe and I will show you,"

And what are these things they could possibly show me?

 

[everman]

They both require a little faith sometimes. Some more than others

 

[m2kewl]

Originally posted by: aircooled
Science is factual. Religion is a belief.

nicely spoken.

:beer::beer::beer: for you!!

 

[Looney]

Originally posted by: everman
They both require a little faith sometimes. Some more than others

I think that's an overuse term... science doesn't depend on faith, it depends on sensibility. In Christianity, there is absolutely nothing that differentiates it from any other belief... just what you want to believe. Science on the other hand depends on what is the most likely... which is supported by numerous other things, such as empirical evidence and logical reasoning.

 

[TuffGirl]

Originally posted by: DaveSimmons

Originally posted by: Woodchuck2000
That said, Science is still based on a set of axioms which cannot be proven.
I know people who's faith is as logically consistent as contemporary science.

Actually sicence is based on a set of axioms which have never been disproven (despite rigorous testing) a hugely important difference.

Not only have they never been disproven, but any physical or scientific law can still be disproven, as in if future evidence arises that disproves a law, then a corollary can be added to it. There's nothing about science that is set in stone. Take for example the 1st law of mechanics that was found to be inaccurate by Einstein when he discovered special relativity. The 1st law remains intact for all cases on earth but not in cases of objects travelling at the speed of light. As a result, special relativity is considered a corollary to the first law of mechanics.

In contrast, stories in the Bible are immutable and when "new evidence" is discovered that contradicts them, all one has to do is "interpret" them differently and voila you have an explanation that is consistent with whatever you want it to be consistent with. It's arbitrary. Science does not work that way. The scientific method does not allow for arbitrary interpretations.

 

[przero]

Point me to one. And also to the primordial soup they have cooked up creating life.

 

[przero]

klee58 - In real simple terms explain the difference in those last 2 paragraphs you posted.

 

[przero]

While you are at it could you be more specific ""new evidence" is discovered that contradicts them" on some of this "evidence"?

 

[CZroe]

Originally posted by: kranky
Science and religion aren't in opposition. There are scientists who don't buy the claim of evolution.

The whole "origin of life" issue - regardless of which side you are on - comes down to a faith-based opinion. I personally believe that there is no way life arose from nothing. Nor do I believe all species evolved from some primordial soup. Life is just far, far too complex to be explained away by lucky evolution. Of course, I can't prove God created life, but from everything I've learned and observed that makes more sense than a unbelievably long series of unbelievable coincidences.

On the other hand, people who believe in evolution have no proof either. Of the billions of fossils known, they can't identify any which are "transitional" ones. Evolution is in direct opposition to the law of entropy (systems tend towards disorder) and there are no examples in nature that I know of where the law of entropy did not apply.

Not only can they not truely represent them in the fossil record, but neither real-live "missing links." Blind cave fish represent a perfect example of the law of entropy. Can you find a perfect example of reverse-evolution (Considering that entrophy so far is the only PROVEN direction)? Why does only one CONVENIENTLY exist while all others are designated as orders and species? You can compare the skeletons of all living humans today and find more variation than in all the fossil record (DISMISSING extinct apes and variation within their own fossils). The fossil record is like a witch hunt. You see what you're looking for and if you looked for it in today's living creatures you'd find some way to support it too.

If you left a wooden shed out in the woods, it would deteriorate. It doesn't matter times you tried or how much time you gave it, it would never turn into a mansion and would never have a "house" as a missing link. This is what has happened to the blind cave fish. Things deteriorate into something less-complicated therefore more stable. The simplest state of existance is simply existance (Which evolution doesn't even try to explain). Matter exists. Matter existed. Why would anything EVER develop any further if reproduction was irellevant? If it did, why did it not return to simply existance? Single-celled organisms should have developed into simpler non-living automated viruses then enzymes and amino acids then simply whatever those stabilized with. According to science, DNA is impossible to "develop" not matter what sorts of life or chemical reactions "preceeded" it and no one has even tried to explain it.

Originally posted by: Marshallj

Originally posted by: kranky
Evolution is in direct opposition to the law of entropy (systems tend towards disorder) and there are no examples in nature that I know of where the law of entropy did not apply.

This is an often used, but incorrect assertion. Evolution is NOT in direct opposition to entropy. Entropy contends that energy always tends to move towards disorder (waste, such as heat and radiation). Humans waste more energy than any other lifeform.

So you apparantly thought "The Machines'" decision to use humans as power generators in "The Matrix" was wise? Or did you get that from "The Matrix?"

It has nothing to do with disorder. It has to do with simplicity. Things do not develop complexity because that is impossible without design. They get simpler; less complex. You're thinking patterns in complexity or Chaos Theory or something... Eventually, once all reactions and energy have settled, you may have the simplest state but complex systems do not generate themselves regardless of how much energy there is.

 

[Marshallj]

Originally posted by: CZroe
Things do not develop complexity because that is impossible without design. They get simpler; less complex. You're thinking patterns in complexity or Chaos Theory or something... Eventually, once all reactions and energy have settled, you may have the simplest state but complex systems do not generate themselves regardless of how much energy there is.

Sort of like how the wings of white and black moths did not become peppered when pollution darkened the trees they hide on? How is having more than one color simpler than having wings of one solid color? The simple answer would be that the moths which did not blend in well with their surroundings were quickly eaten and did not get to reproduce. After a number of years only the ones which blended in with their environment were able to survive.

Natural selection can make things more complicated, since a simpler living thing may not be able to compete in nature with a more advanced one. The weaker, simpler ones may die off if they don't have a niche.

If you're looking for a "designer", then nature and your surroundings is your "designer". You will have to adapt to survive in your environment. Thinking that there's an all knowing "master creator" is a very flawed easy way out, since I'd imagine that it would be a lot easier for a single cell organism to spring to life out of nowhere than a highly advanced master creator springing to life out of nowhere.

You are completely wrong, simple as that.

 

[Marshallj]

Originally posted by: CZroe
Not only can they not truely represent them in the fossil record, but neither real-live "missing links." Blind cave fish represent a perfect example of the law of entropy. Can you find a perfect example of reverse-evolution (Considering that entrophy so far is the only PROVEN direction)? Why does only one CONVENIENTLY exist while all others are designated as orders and species? You can compare the skeletons of all living humans today and find more variation than in all the fossil record (DISMISSING extinct apes and variation within their own fossils). The fossil record is like a witch hunt. You see what you're looking for and if you looked for it in today's living creatures you'd find some way to support it too.

If you left a wooden shed out in the woods, it would deteriorate. It doesn't matter times you tried or how much time you gave it, it would never turn into a mansion and would never have a "house" as a missing link. This is what has happened to the blind cave fish. Things deteriorate into something less-complicated therefore more stable. The simplest state of existance is simply existance (Which evolution doesn't even try to explain). Matter exists. Matter existed. Why would anything EVER develop any further if reproduction was irellevant? If it did, why did it not return to simply existance? Single-celled organisms should have developed into simpler non-living automated viruses then enzymes and amino acids then simply whatever those stabilized with. According to science, DNA is impossible to "develop" not matter what sorts of life or chemical reactions "preceeded" it and no one has even tried to explain it.

Your argument is flawed from the beginning. It's been beaten to death and disproved. Give up trying to act like you're onto something and educate yourself:

Read.

 

[CZroe]

Originally posted by: Marshallj

Originally posted by: CZroe
Things do not develop complexity because that is impossible without design. They get simpler; less complex. You're thinking patterns in complexity or Chaos Theory or something... Eventually, once all reactions and energy have settled, you may have the simplest state but complex systems do not generate themselves regardless of how much energy there is.

Sort of like how the wings of white and black moths did not become peppered when pollution darkened the trees they hide on? How is having more than one color simpler than having wings of one solid color? The simple answer would be that the moths which did not blend in well with their surroundings were quickly eaten and did not get to reproduce. After a number of years only the ones which blended in with their environment were able to survive.

Natural selection can make things more complicated, since a simpler living thing may not be able to compete in nature with a more advanced one. The weaker, simpler ones may die off if they don't have a niche.

If you're looking for a "designer", then nature and your surroundings is your "designer". You will have to adapt to survive in your environment. Thinking that there's an all knowing "master creator" is a very flawed easy way out, since I'd imagine that it would be a lot easier for a single cell organism to spring to life out of nowhere than a highly advanced master creator springing to life out of nowhere.

You are completely wrong, simple as that.

It is not meant to describe CURRENT states, but how we got to the current state. Logically, things would never progress beyond simple matter if matter ever somehow manifested itself. Genes for BOTH colored moths always existed. They were not mutated. That's DESIGN. The white moths were either still around in smaller numbers (RARE) or their genes were still existing in the black moths and could easily be selectively bred out just like domesticated vs. wild canines. If natural selection were that black and white, why do we have such variety within our own genes? It was not evolved. It would take an environment change over millions of years with trillions of moths to develop an adaptive mutation. This was pre-existing in their genetic code and the time-frame proves it.

 

[CZroe]

Originally posted by: Marshallj
Your argument is flawed from the beginning. It's been beaten to death and disproved. Give up trying to act like you're onto something and educate yourself:

Read.

I've read that before (Linked from Slashdot). Sounds like you just simply accept what is told to you instead of applying the logic yourself. The author uses several examples of simplicity as order and therefore complexity. ie, a snowflake. A simple, pure, weightless alignment of water molecules. The simlest state. Take away change, nature, survival of the fittest, why would any arrangement of any matter ever need to be something MORE? It would just BE. Explain BEING and you've got a different problem.