Why Religion VS Science?

tosca1 said:

Oh puhleez.....I stopped watching after the first two statements.
"The idea that really, really believing something is the same as knowing it."

Who thinks that way? Ignorant people. :lol:


But I saw you stated to watch .32 of that video. So I watched.


EXTRAORDINARY CLAIMS REQUIRE EXTRAORDINARY EVIDENCE.


Apply that to the theory of evolution, starting at .50 of that video and all the way through the dinosaur analogy. :lol:



Yes, let's apply critical thinking....

Why do evolutionists see that as a fact when their statements are littered with:

maybe
could be
probably
may have been
could have been
likely


All these years, not a single conclusive transitional fossil found!

Especially when evidences being discovered throws a wrench on macro-evolution (ex, common ancestry). What more, when evolutionist scientists keep changing the parameters with their continuous assumptions and suppositions.

Click to expand...

First of alkl that video (the dinosaur part) has nothing to do with evolution so either you didn't listen to it while you watched it or you have a tough grasping simple concepts. Evolution is a fact and there is swarms of evidence. I also see you have no understanding what a transitional fossil is. Basically every fossil out there is a transitional fossil.

tosca1 said:

I'm sure prominent scientists who questions evolution, and supports intelligent design, had done more than just
critical thinking for them to come out publicly.

We hardly understand in details what scientists talk about - but one thing I know:
some scientists convert from atheism to deism, theism, Christianity.....due to what they deemed as
scientific evidence(s).

Click to expand...

I really don't think there are that many scientists who believe in intelligent design. I have only heard of one and I remember he said something akin to "all the evidence shows evolution is real but I'm sticking with god just to be safe." There are many christian scientists but you will be hard pressed to find creationist scientists out of the millions of scientists on this planet.

tosca1 said:

Wait a minute! Wait a minute!


It just occurred to me.....that logic is wrong!

Extraordinary claims require evidence! Period.



What is "extraordinary" evidence, anyway?

Click to expand...

I guess that would be hard evidence. If I claimed I saw a Brachiosaurus in a field yet no other person saw this, because this claim is very extraordinary, hard and real evidence is needed to persuade anyone to believe it. Even if I said I found a footprint someone with actual critical thinking skills would ponder, why only one footprint, why would no one else see an animal this size. There was no hard evidence to support my extraordinary claims.

tosca1 said:

Oh? Not relevant anymore?

Why? Have anything significant changed from those disciplines in science? Which disciplines or discoveries above are no longer relevant today?

As long as they're still being used - they are relevant to this topic. There is no real "Religion VERSUS Science" - that's what we've been saying.

Click to expand...

It depends on the specific religious beliefs we are talking about , now doesn't it. There are people out there that are Young Earth Creationists, or believe in 'Special Creation', and deny certain scientific facts, such as 'the age of the earth', and 'what we know about biology'.

Then you have the liberal theologies..

Intelligent Designers should realize that Evolution in no way undermines a Creator. Sal Khan makes a case below that a truly intelligent designer would create an evolutionary mechanism. Instead of realizing this, Intelligent Designers think there is a conflict, and so in their minds it is God vs Evolution and so Evolution must be wrong no matter the overwhelming evidence in support of it.

laska said:

Intelligent Designers should realize that Evolution in no way undermines a Creator. Sal Khan makes a case below that a truly intelligent designer would create an evolutionary mechanism. Instead of realizing this, Intelligent Designers think there is a conflict, and so in their minds it is God vs Evolution and so Evolution must be wrong no matter the overwhelming evidence in support of it.

Click to expand...

I think the ID ranks are populated with biblical literalists as well as young earthers.
Any evidence that indicates that the world is more than a few thousand years old conflicts with their biblical interpretation.
Any evidence that supports the evolutionary process would mean the world is really, really old.
ID people take that 6 day creation with one day of rest literally.
Maybe Sal Khan can persuade them.

RAMOSS said:

It depends on the specific religious beliefs we are talking about , now doesn't it. There are people out there that are Young Earth Creationists, or believe in 'Special Creation', and deny certain scientific facts, such as 'the age of the earth', and 'what we know about biology'.

Then you have the liberal theologies..

Click to expand...

Their specific Christian beliefs does not make any difference at all.

We're talking about ESTABLISHED DISCIPLINES!
They're already proven and established, regardless whether the Christian scientists who established or discovered them are young earth creationists or not.


If they aren't debunked, and if they are still being used - they are still relevant today!

tosca1 said:

Their specific Christian beliefs does not make any difference at all.

We're talking about ESTABLISHED DISCIPLINES!
They're already proven and established, regardless whether the Christian scientists who established or discovered them are young earth creationists or not.


If they aren't debunked, and if they are still being used - they are still relevant today!

Click to expand...

Yet, one reason that there have been an increase in the rate of scientists who are skeptics is that the information given continually contradicts religion.Some of the methodology might be relevant, but the purpose of many of the early scientists was to confirm the bible when it comes to it being literally true, and they kept on finding that view was false. Consequently, you have more people who take it as being 'allegory', or just being plain old willfully ignorant.

tosca1 said:

Their specific Christian beliefs does not make any difference at all.

We're talking about ESTABLISHED DISCIPLINES!
They're already proven and established, regardless whether the Christian scientists who established or discovered them are young earth creationists or not.


If they aren't debunked, and if they are still being used - they are still relevant today!

Click to expand...

Definition of 'Established Disciplines' being those disciplines that accord with the basic dogma of Creationism and YEC.

Oops, do I hear the sound of hypocrites typing at computers and denying the Scientific Method that provided them.

RAMOSS said:

Yet, one reason that there have been an increase in the rate of scientists who are skeptics is that the information given continually contradicts religion.Some of the methodology might be relevant, but the purpose of many of the early scientists was to confirm the bible when it comes to it being literally true, and they kept on finding that view was false. Consequently, you have more people who take it as being 'allegory', or just being plain old willfully ignorant.

Click to expand...

Fortunately, James Hutton was able to rise above that.

RAMOSS said:

the purpose of many of the early scientists was to confirm the bible when it comes to it being literally true, and they kept on finding that view was false. Consequently, you have more people who take it as being 'allegory', or just being plain old willfully ignorant.

Click to expand...

Your history is not accurate here. The purpose of early scientists was not to confirm the bible; the bible was taken to be true as a matter of fact, it wasn't questioned then any more than we today would question the existence of gravity. It would not have made sense for anyone to set out to prove those things everyone already understood to be true. The intention was to better understand God's creation. That God created it was never in question, the question was how did he create it and how does it work? If you read any of the writing of early scientists, Copernicus, or Newton for example, that's precisely what you will find, the exploration of God's creation. No one was interested in proving things everyone already accepted by default to be true.

As for the bible's creation narratives being allegorical, you can trace that view back to the very earliest existing non-canonical Christian writings. Clement of Alexandria and Origen both believed it as did St. Augustine. You can trace that line of thinking all through church history even up to the writings of John Wesley, the founder of Methodism. The view that holds creation accounts to have been literal doesn't find wide acceptance until the late 1500s, and even then it never quite manages to become the dominant view.