Why must science preclude religion?

[jaydee]

The problem usually arises, when people confusedly use the words "science" and "atheism" interchangeably, and view "science" and "religion" as an oxymoron.

Do you choose to ignore the thousands of skeletons that we've unearthed that show slight changes that progress from ape-like beings to modern humans? Or do you have a clever rebuttle for that too?

Could you be more specific? Which skeleton are you referring to?

Nebraska Man formed out of a single tooth, which turned out to be from a peccary, a close relative of the pig?

Or Piltdown Man, declared an ape-man, 500,000 years old, and validated by many of Britain's leading scientists, including Grafton Elliot Smith, anatomist Sir Arthur Keith and British Museum geologist Arthur Smith Woodward. At the time the discovery was announced (1912), the New York Times ran this headline: "Darwin Theory Proved True." For the next four decades, Piltdown Man was evolution's greatest showcase, featured in textbooks and encyclopedias. But what did the Piltdown Man actually consist of? A very recent orangutan jaw, which had been stained to look old, with its teeth filed down to make them more human-looking, planted together with a human skull bone, also stained to create an appearance of age.

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.

I think you are more accuratly describing the "evolution" of evolution. The way C-14 is used. The "Mars rock". Does the "scientific method" justify killing Aboriginal people in the late 1800's, and boiling down there skeletons to try to prove that they were less evolved than white people? It's strange how the truths tend to get less press attention than the lies.

 

[RyanM]

Originally posted by: jaydee
The problem usually arises, when people confusedly use the words "science" and "atheism" interchangeably, and view "science" and "religion" as an oxymoron.

Do you choose to ignore the thousands of skeletons that we've unearthed that show slight changes that progress from ape-like beings to modern humans? Or do you have a clever rebuttle for that too?

Could you be more specific? Which skeleton are you referring to?

Nebraska Man formed out of a single tooth, which turned out to be from a peccary, a close relative of the pig?

Or Piltdown Man, declared an ape-man, 500,000 years old, and validated by many of Britain's leading scientists, including Grafton Elliot Smith, anatomist Sir Arthur Keith and British Museum geologist Arthur Smith Woodward. At the time the discovery was announced (1912), the New York Times ran this headline: "Darwin Theory Proved True." For the next four decades, Piltdown Man was evolution's greatest showcase, featured in textbooks and encyclopedias. But what did the Piltdown Man actually consist of? A very recent orangutan jaw, which had been stained to look old, with its teeth filed down to make them more human-looking, planted together with a human skull bone, also stained to create an appearance of age.

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.

I think you are more accuratly describing the "evolution" of evolution. The way C-14 is used. The "Mars rock". Does the "scientific method" justify killing Aboriginal people in the late 1800's, and boiling down there skeletons to try to prove that they were less evolved than white people? It's strange how the truths tend to get less press attention than the lies.

I thought the aborigines were killed because they were godless primitives.

Maybe you should check your history, and see who was trying to prove they were inferior.

 

[RyanM]

Your entropy argument fails because of one simple fact:

ENTROPY CANNOT BE OBSERVED IN AN OPEN SYSTEM.

The Earth is an open system, since it is part of the Universe. Now, the Universe, as far as we know, is a closed system. So we can examine entropy in the Universe.

Now, intelligent life developed on earth, which was the formation of more order. But meanwhile, thoughtout the universe, billions of stars died, galaxies exploded, black holes formed, and so on and so forth.

When you weigh the slight progression of complexity that has occured on earth to the utter chaos of the Universe, there's no defiance of the second law.

Evolution fits right in with it.

 

[Falloutboy]

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

***Flame Suit on and ready***


One instance when their is evidence that the world is much older than the bible leads people to be-leave many either say that science is wrong and be lieve what they believe or how my mom would put it its a "ploy" of Satan to lead damnation

Then their are stories like Noah which to me are just like "fairy tales" on how unbeleaveable they are. Their is no way any one man or even a thousand people with primitive technology to build a boat big enough to hold 2 of every species of animal in the world. I brought this up to my mom last time I got in a debate with her and she said their weren't as many types of animals back then, I said OK so did more species "evolve" then??

In my opinion the bible & other religions came from primitive man trying to make sense of his soroundings much like we do now with science, and the only reason religion is around now is a lot of people would be terrified with the concept that their isn't some higher power controlling are destinies.

This is all coming from someone who from birth who had religion drilled into his head till age 18.

***Flame Suit on and ready***

 

[CZroe]

It has been shown time and time again that The Ark in the scpecifications described in The Bible could easily have held all orders. Then consider that nearly all domesticated dogs are bred from a limited set of wild species. The genes were always there. You could apply this to many other animals. Cats, cattle, ducks, the list certainly doesn't end there.

You refute religion because you don't "think" it's possible?

 

[Xionide]

Man too many religeon threads.

-Xionide