[karajorma]

 I only have issues with evolution because of one man (Dr. Richard Dawkins, because he is the author of The God Delusion and thinks faith should die in the wake of science  )

Can you not see the idiocy of that statement? So if Dawkins said puppies are cute that makes them not cute? You're basically saying that you disagree with something because of the person who said it.

Whether you agree or disagree with what Science says on a subject should be down to a careful examination of the reasoned argument for the theory. It should never be based on a personal like or dislike of the person. Just cause you dislike someone doesn't mean that they can't be right.

the big bang theory because I already have answered that question, at least to myself, and that science refuses to accept the possiblity of God in that respect.

Science refuses to accept "God made the Big Bang" happen as the be all and end all of how the universe is created. Going back to your example of the car it's like the kid saying "No, God made it run" and refusing to accept the workings of the internal combustion engine. Science never says God can't exist. That's a philosophical question not a scientific one.

Secondly, I can respect your beliefs too.  I do respect your belief, and I choose not to ridicule it.  You could try to do the same. 

I refuse to respect your beliefs. If someone tries to tell me he believes the Earth is flat I'm going to tell him he's full of ****. If someone tries to tell me that the sun orbits the Earth I'm going to call that nonsense. And if someone tries to tell me that they've stuck their fingers in their ears, refused to learn anything about physics or biology and then have the sheer arrogance to tell me that they think they know it better than those who have, you can bet they're going to hear about it from me. You don't get a pass simply because your belief is about God. If it conflicts with science I've got no respect for it.

You can believe it all you want. I'm not going to force you not to believe. I'm not going to censor your opinions. You can insist it is true all you want and you can post that it is as often as you like. And every time you do I'm going to be right there to say it's bollocks. Because if I have to respect your belief, I also have to respect that of the flat Earther.

[Rian]

Even if it is irrelevant for the theories, that does not mean that God has to be cut off of every single theory.  The two are not mutually exclusive.

I certainly agree that they are not mutually exclusive, because plenty of people find places in their worldviews for both. But science and religion deal with separate aspects of existence, and I strongly believe that they should remain separate. Science cannot provide any answers in matters of faith, because faith is concerned with things that must be accepted, rather than proven. Likewise, religion has no place in scientific theories. They are scientific theories because they are based on empirically verifiable observations about the universe.

[Ghostavo]

Even if it is irrelevant for the theories, that does not mean that God has to be cut off of every single theory.  The two are not mutually exclusive.

If god is unmeasurable, how do you plan to test that the theory works with or without god intrusion? Ask for a time off? The existence of god is irrelevant, it contributes nothing to the theory.

Also, as soon as you mention god in any theory, you suddenly have a lot more things to prove than otherwise. And with Occam's razor and all that...


Regarding capitalization, it's pretty much irrelevant in this case, since I could be referring to any mythology's god.

[Scotty]

Can you not see the idiocy of that statement?

I can now.   I can see your point, but I still hold some reservations.

I refuse to respect your beliefs.

You just wait.  The tolerance nazis will get you eventually  

If someone tries to tell me he believes the Earth is flat I'm going to tell him he's full of ****.

That's not nice.  You don't have to personally insult the guy to tell him he's wrong.  His belief may very well be full of it, but you don't have to call him that.

If someone tries to tell me that the sun orbits the Earth I'm going to call that nonsense.

So will I, but I won't call him an idiot for even thinking it.

If it conflicts with science I've got no respect for it.

All hail the magnificence of science, huh?

And every time you do I'm going to be right there to say it's bollocks.

And that exactly is what turns stuff like this into flame wars.  You can't have a rational discussion with someone if every time you say something that conflicts ever so slightly with their beliefs they just say "it's bollocks" and walk away.  (Who was it that said something about this earlier?  )  Before you try to turn that right back this way, I try to be accepting of your opinions and most certainly HAVE NOT just plugged my ears and tried desperately not to hear it.

[iamzack]

science isn't beliefs

[karajorma]

I believe, about science, that God created the ways of the universe.  He made it, how it works, and what that work does.  God set in motion the universe, and we find out what we will about it. 

Then why disbelieve in evolution? If God set the universe in motion why do you not believe that he left it for 14 billion years until evolution had created humans? Especially when there is good evidence for evolution? Why do you insist on clinging onto other explanations even though you obviously don't actually understand the scientific one?

I find it odd that, aside from you, on BOTH sides of the argument assume that it must work one way or the other.  Either God exists and made and controls everything, or he is a product of our imaginations and to be forgotten or destroyed at the soonest opportunity.  I am deeply saddened by that kind of thinking.

Incorrect. I've already said that my argument about whether God exists to give the universe meaning is a philosophical one. My problem is when instead of sticking to the philosophical arguments people insist on trying to use God to argue against science. This thread is a very good example of that. It was a debate about a philosophical point. Why did evolution\the big bang ever have to enter into it?

[Rian]

You just wait.  The tolerance nazis will get you eventually  

"Tolerance Nazis" seems like a bit of an oxymoron, doesn't it?

[iamzack]

Godwin's Law?

[karajorma]

I can now.   I can see your point, but I still hold some reservations.

Then read up on the subject. Usually I'd suggest reading The Selfish Gene but if you don't like Dawkins for his philosophical arguments against God you probably won't like it. I'm sure someone can recommend a good book on the subject though.

That's not nice.  You don't have to personally insult the guy to tell him he's wrong.  His belief may very well be full of it, but you don't have to call him that.

Okay, his belief is a load of ****.

So will I, but I won't call him an idiot for even thinking it.

Nor would I.

If it conflicts with science I've got no respect for it.

All hail the magnificence of science, huh?

Nope. The science could be wrong but out of all the answers we have it is the one most likely to be correct. I simply don't see any sense in rejecting an answer that is more likely to be correct in favour of one that is less likely.

And that exactly is what turns stuff like this into flame wars.  You can't have a rational discussion with someone if every time you say something that conflicts ever so slightly with their beliefs they just say "it's bollocks" and walk away.  (Who was it that said something about this earlier?  )  Before you try to turn that right back this way, I try to be accepting of your opinions and most certainly HAVE NOT just plugged my ears and tried desperately not to hear it.

Nor have I. I've always given you a counter argument and explained why yours was nonsensical. Hell I've asked questions fairly often too whenever someone has said something I was interested in hearing more about.

[Scotty]

 

Then why disbelieve in evolution?

Never have I said I disbelieve in evolution (If I actually did say that about 10 pages ago, well, that's what these threads are for, but I'm pretty sure I didn't).  I am completely sure that evolution occurs.  I said it has some problems with it.  ALL scientific THEORIES have some problems.

If God set the universe in motion why do you not believe that he left it for 14 billion years until evolution had created humans

See above.  Also, ~4 billion years </nitpick>.  Finally, that is just about exactly what I believe.  Just about, but not entirely.  Interestingly enough, the Bible actually has some support for this.  While it says 'on this day' or 'on that day', the order of appearance of different creatures is similar.  The Bible specifically gives the order for the creation.  First, plants (not counting uni-cellular evolution here, becuase we didn't even know about those until the late 1700s), then fish, birds, mammals, and finally man.

Why do you insist on clinging onto other explanations

Is that (up) another explanation?  It's evolution.

people insist on trying to use God to argue against science.

I try not to argue against science simply on the basis of God.  

Why did evolution\the big bang ever have to enter into it?

I dunno.  You can check way back when in the thread for that.

It was a debate about a philosophical point.

Sure was.  If you want to go back to that, go ahead.  I was enjoying this conversation.  

[karajorma]

If God set the universe in motion why do you not believe that he left it for 14 billion years until evolution had created humans

See above.  Also, ~4 billion years </nitpick>.  

I said universe. The Earth is ~4 billion years old. The universe is much older than that.

Finally, that is just about exactly what I believe.  Just about, but not entirely.  Interestingly enough, the Bible actually has some support for this.  While it says 'on this day' or 'on that day', the order of appearance of different creatures is similar.  The Bible specifically gives the order for the creation.  First, plants (not counting uni-cellular evolution here, becuase we didn't even know about those until the late 1700s), then fish, birds, mammals, and finally man.

Completely stuffs up the order of creation for other things though. Plants first and then the stars, moon and sun? The last two might work if you believe in panspermia but plants before the stars? How would that even be possible without stars to make the heavy atoms in the first place?

[Scotty]

I was only pointing out the order of the creation of living things.

[karajorma]

Still wrong. Birds are descended from dinosaurs but Genesis has them before any land animals. Similarly it has whales before land animals. It has birds before reptiles for that matter.

[Snail]

Probably the Bible was mistranslated thousands and thousands of times over the ages, thus today's interpretation is just a piece of FUBAR'd crap that is nothing like the true word of God.

[Mobius]

Or probably (read almost certainly) all the stuff on it was invented from scratch thanks to the notable efforts of a few random storytellers(then turned into writers)...

[Turambar]

Or probably (read almost certainly) all the stuff on it was invented from scratch thanks to the notable efforts of a few random storytellers(then turned into writers)...

Come on, at least give it the credit it deserves as a compilation and adaptation of thousands of years of human myth and superstition.  It probably wasn't very easy adapting Odin and Horus into Jesus

[Wobble73]

That was my point about the supposedly lost scrolls of Mary Magdelene, the pothesised thirteenth apostle/disciple. The biblr has been edited and and adapted and translated for thousands of years. Many things are lost in translation!

[Ace]

[Tigh voice]The thirteenth apostle... a Cylon apostle![/Tigh voice] 

[Mobius]

Or probably (read almost certainly) all the stuff on it was invented from scratch thanks to the notable efforts of a few random storytellers(then turned into writers)...

Come on, at least give it the credit it deserves as a compilation and adaptation of thousands of years of human myth and superstition.  It probably wasn't very easy adapting Odin and Horus into Jesus

Mine was pure approach led by Science. The Bible is likely to be a superb example of human-made stuff several groups of individuals point out as "Made thanks to divine inspiration".

And lol, I'd really like to read an article about Science's vision of the Bible's development. No Physics, no Astronomy on that article...only Psychology and Parapsychology and notable explanations on how and why the Bible succeeded.

You know, they don't like evolution despite the fact that the way religion has emerged in the past thousand years matches natural selection.

[NGTM-1R]

Come on, at least give it the credit it deserves as a compilation and adaptation of thousands of years of human myth and superstition.  It probably wasn't very easy adapting Odin and Horus into Jesus

I'm pretty sure Odin is, at best, contemporary with Jesus.