God vs Science?

Page 4 of 4 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: God vs Science?

Post  0023 on 3/12/2010, 17:01

OK so recently i have been having talks with my dad about evolution vs. creation. Hes a believer on Jesus and everything, but he isn't 100% sold on creation and feels that evolution is more "scientifically" believable. any ideas or thoughts?

0023
Joint Chief of Staff

Director
Location : Sector 2
Posts : 38
Sector 2

SED

Back to top Go down

Re: God vs Science?

Post  Jedi Joe on 3/12/2010, 17:16

There are many Christians who believe that, Barsoom. Francis S. Collins, the head of the Human Genome Project is one of them, and he wrote a book about it. There isn't anything wrong with your dad thinking God used evolution as a process of creation.
avatar
Jedi Joe
Skyologist

None
Location : Florida
Posts : 717
None


Back to top Go down

Re: God vs Science?

Post  80-0 on 3/13/2010, 04:47

Sgt Angry Egg wrote:I understand that point. All I'm saying is that although it is the most logical, practical, and probable solution to say there is a God, that isn't necessarily proof.

For example, in math there are 'limits' of functions. As x approaches the trivial number C, f(x) approaches another number. Although it's pretty much taken for granted that as x approaches c, f(x) will approach f(c), it isn't necessarily true. Just overwhelmingly probably.

Another example: put a cat in a box. Close the box. Assuming this is a sound proof box, you have no reason to believe that there is a cat inside the box, save for the fact that it is overwhelmingly probable that the cat is still there. You just can't know. You can't see it, touch it, smell it (hopefully), hear it (it's a sound proof box), or taste it (why would you want to?). All you have is faith that the cat is still in the box, and hasn't vaporized or something extremely, ridiculously improbable like that.

Fascinating analogy! Sorry to bump this post from page 1 but I wanted to comment on it, as it was the most interesting post in this thread. Wink

So Heaven is the box and God is the cat. Ok. Well, first of all, take into account several things that once you've taken them into account will help you to know that that cat is in that box:

The cat created you. The cat loves you. The cat died for you. The cat is almighty, and as such cannot be vaporized. The cat can see you and everything you do constantly. The cat would be able to tell you everything you've done since you put it in the box, because of its aforementioned omniscience.



Quite a cat eh?


Now on to science. Someone said that science and religion cannot intertwine? I say hogwash. Someone else said that science is unbiased and religion is not. Then someone else said PEOPLE are biased.

Well I thought about this, and the person who said people are biased is right.

Science cannot contradict God. Scientists want it to contradict God, so they make it appear to contradict God. But now and then something unwanted slips their fingers such as the adult stem cell research that said they no longer needed to kill unborn children to get their stem cells, that they could take them from adults.

There are these certain flat earth no growthers out there who want the planet to end. They represent the devil. Now why do I call them as such? Flat earthers? They believe foolish old principles that have been long disproved, such as that the earth is not round, but flat. Fallacious.

No growthers? They want us to slowly die out, lest we harm Mother Earth, because it is WE, the human race, who are doing the most harm to Mother Earth (how stupid is that, that man could destroy the planet). So therefore they stand by ideas like eugenics and population control so we don't make too many people, then have euthanasia so we can weed out old people so we won't have to waste our resources on them. That way we'll just have this one little group of middle aged people who will eventually die entirely.


But how will all this happen? This will happen if the devil wins the battle of ideas in this great nation of ours, and in so many other nations where he may already have gotten the upper hand.
avatar
80-0

None
Location : Cold and snowy New York, as always.
Posts : 470
None


Back to top Go down

Re: God vs Science?

Post  0001 on 3/15/2010, 12:57

@Barsoom: Scientifically, Evolution is not possible. Earth is not old enough for such complex animals and structures to have occurred naturally. I showed a video about this, about a month before you joined, that explained (from scientific standpoint) that evolution cannot happen. It used these bio-mechanic parts called Fladgeler motors to prove this point. The motors parts are dependent on each other, and evolutionarilly had to develop all at once, which isn't how evolution is supposed to work.

The basic point is this: Evolution through natural selection is true, it is a means for animals to grow and adapt to their changing environments. HOWEVER it cannot change an animals make-up entirely. Like us coming from apes for example, is not possible. Animals change over time yes, but do not experience complete overhauls of bio-structure.


Last edited by astoriabluelegos on 3/15/2010, 18:05; edited 1 time in total

_________________
"Don't use foul or abusive language. Let everything you say be good and helpful, so that your words will be an encouragement to those who hear them." -Ephesians 4:29, NLT
avatar
0001
Executive Director

Executive Director
Location : Junction City, Oregon
Posts : 4044
Sector 2

Central Command

Back to top Go down

Re: God vs Science?

Post  Jedi Joe on 3/15/2010, 13:51

Which is why I believe that God tweaked the DNA over time instead of it just "evolving".
avatar
Jedi Joe
Skyologist

None
Location : Florida
Posts : 717
None


Back to top Go down

Re: God vs Science?

Post  Sgt Angry Egg on 3/15/2010, 15:02

Thanks, but the cat-in-a-box idea came from Erwin Schrödinger (google Schrödinger's Cat)

[quote="80-0"]
Sgt Angry Egg wrote:
The cat created you. The cat loves you. The cat died for you. The cat is almighty, and as such cannot be vaporized. The cat can see you and everything you do constantly. The cat would be able to tell you everything you've done since you put it in the box, because of its aforementioned omniscience.

I'm not questioning the cat's abilities. The problem here is: everything you said assumes the cat exists, but does not prove it. We must assume the cat exists before we can conclude that it loves me, died for me, is almighty, etc. The existence of the cat implies these things, not the other way around. In logical notation:
p==>q, q=/=>p (p implies q, q does not imply p) So, we must have faith that the cat exists (that p is true), in order to conclude that q is true.

Also, saying that scientists want science to contradict God is a generalization. Quite honestly, religious people seem to have more problems with science than scientific people have with religion.

@ABL: The earth is 4.54 billion years old. I would say that's more than enough time for complex animals to evolve.

As for the flagellum motor argument, this youtube video explains it better than I can.
video
But, if you don't feel like watching it, basically the guy says that the individual parts evolved first, for their own different purposes, and were only later combined to make a flagellum motor.

Also, evolution doesn't say we came from apes, it says we and apes share a common ancestor. I know it doesn't really change your point at all, but I'm a stickler for things like that.
avatar
Sgt Angry Egg
The Voice of Reason

A6 Standard
Location : Sector 2
Posts : 456
Sector 2

SED

Back to top Go down

Re: God vs Science?

Post  0001 on 3/15/2010, 18:08

Egg you watched that video with us, so how can you dispute the mathmatical equation they gave for evolution. Mathematically it's simply not possible, even if we have been around 4.4 Billion years. And you just proved my point, they said in the video it's not possible for those things to have evolved seperatly to form the motor, since they were formed specifically for that motor, and no other purpose could have created them, so evolutionarily it couldn't have happened. There is a name for these structures in science, but I forget it just now, there are many others besides the flaggeler as well.


Last edited by astoriabluelegos on 3/16/2010, 14:37; edited 1 time in total

_________________
"Don't use foul or abusive language. Let everything you say be good and helpful, so that your words will be an encouragement to those who hear them." -Ephesians 4:29, NLT
avatar
0001
Executive Director

Executive Director
Location : Junction City, Oregon
Posts : 4044
Sector 2

Central Command

Back to top Go down

Re: God vs Science?

Post  80-0 on 3/16/2010, 07:07

[quote="Sgt Angry Egg"]Thanks, but the cat-in-a-box idea came from Erwin Schrödinger (google Schrödinger's Cat)

80-0 wrote:
Sgt Angry Egg wrote:
The cat created you. The cat loves you. The cat died for you. The cat is almighty, and as such cannot be vaporized. The cat can see you and everything you do constantly. The cat would be able to tell you everything you've done since you put it in the box, because of its aforementioned omniscience.

I'm not questioning the cat's abilities. The problem here is: everything you said assumes the cat exists, but does not prove it. We must assume the cat exists before we can conclude that it loves me, died for me, is almighty, etc. The existence of the cat implies these things, not the other way around. In logical notation:
p==>q, q=/=>p (p implies q, q does not imply p) So, we must have faith that the cat exists (that p is true), in order to conclude that q is true.

So? Do you have a problem with assuming this cat exists? I don't. And don't forget, the cat has, in the past, done many wonderful things I like to call MIRACLES which are also a testament to its existence.

Also, saying that scientists want science to contradict God is a generalization. Quite honestly, religious people seem to have more problems with science than scientific people have with religion.

Not really. We have problems with the scientists who claim to represent "science", not so much science it self.

@ABL: The earth is 4.54 billion years old. I would say that's more than enough time for complex animals to evolve.

As for the flagellum motor argument, this youtube video explains it better than I can.
video
But, if you don't feel like watching it, basically the guy says that the individual parts evolved first, for their own different purposes, and were only later combined to make a flagellum motor.

Also, evolution doesn't say we came from apes, it says we and apes share a common ancestor. I know it doesn't really change your point at all, but I'm a stickler for things like that.

I say the earth is not 4.54 billion years old. I say it's about 4000-5000 years old, give or take a few thousand. We know it's at least two thousand years old (Anno Domini!), and we also know it goes back through B.C. years at least 2000 additional years. Where you got that billions number is beyond me.
avatar
80-0

None
Location : Cold and snowy New York, as always.
Posts : 470
None


Back to top Go down

Re: God vs Science?

Post  0001 on 3/16/2010, 14:40

Personally I think the actual age is somewhere in the millions, since the Earth really isn't that old in cosmic terms. The number came from studying rock layers, sediment buildup, and aging rocks. Setting a timeline based on life spans and generations is far to inaccurate a way to guage the age of the Earth.

_________________
"Don't use foul or abusive language. Let everything you say be good and helpful, so that your words will be an encouragement to those who hear them." -Ephesians 4:29, NLT
avatar
0001
Executive Director

Executive Director
Location : Junction City, Oregon
Posts : 4044
Sector 2

Central Command

Back to top Go down

Re: God vs Science?

Post  Sgt Angry Egg on 3/16/2010, 14:44

Well, then I guess it comes down to a difference of opinions, 80-0. Shall we agree to disagree?

And Ben, I disputed that video when I watched it, just as much as I dispute it now.
I don't remember anything in that video that said evolution is impossible. As I recall, they said improbable. And I distinctly remember complaining of their figures and sample sizes being too small or too error-prone to really present a real argument.

I did not prove your point. You were saying there is no way for the flagellum motor to have evolved, because if you take away any of its parts it would not function.
I said that flagellum motors could have evolved, because their parts would have evolved individually for other purposes, and then, once they all existed, evolved into a flagellum motor. These are two different ideas. Like I said, watch the video I posted a link to.

The name of the structures you're thinking of are "irreducibly complex" structures, I believe.
avatar
Sgt Angry Egg
The Voice of Reason

A6 Standard
Location : Sector 2
Posts : 456
Sector 2

SED

Back to top Go down

Re: God vs Science?

Post  0001 on 3/16/2010, 22:08

No, they could not have evolved, because they are irreducibly complex, meaning that those parts could ONLY function for that purpose, and not any other, therefore making evolution impossible. How exactly were the numbers error prone or too small?


Last edited by astoriabluelegos on 3/17/2010, 11:45; edited 1 time in total

_________________
"Don't use foul or abusive language. Let everything you say be good and helpful, so that your words will be an encouragement to those who hear them." -Ephesians 4:29, NLT
avatar
0001
Executive Director

Executive Director
Location : Junction City, Oregon
Posts : 4044
Sector 2

Central Command

Back to top Go down

Re: God vs Science?

Post  Cpt. Crinkle on 3/16/2010, 22:34

The 3.4 billion years old comes out of carbon dating and other types of scientific dating. The earth was created at 3.4 billion years and life didn't really come until later. So I bring this back to the idea of we don't know how long the 6 days of creation was. Also humans have been around for about 20,000 years so your beliefs cannot really fit this age of Earth. Sorry about this argument Abl.

Cpt. Crinkle
Shot First

A6 Standard
Location : Sector 2
Posts : 1219
Sector 2

USO

Back to top Go down

Re: God vs Science?

Post  0001 on 3/16/2010, 23:12

Crink, I think you just backed me up actually. Yeah, I did some more research, and it is 3.4 Billion years old, man that's a long time. But I still think most of evolution is totally bogus.

_________________
"Don't use foul or abusive language. Let everything you say be good and helpful, so that your words will be an encouragement to those who hear them." -Ephesians 4:29, NLT
avatar
0001
Executive Director

Executive Director
Location : Junction City, Oregon
Posts : 4044
Sector 2

Central Command

Back to top Go down

Re: God vs Science?

Post  Jedi Joe on 3/17/2010, 08:20

I thought it was 4.5 billion years old.
avatar
Jedi Joe
Skyologist

None
Location : Florida
Posts : 717
None


Back to top Go down

Re: God vs Science?

Post  Cpt. Crinkle on 3/17/2010, 08:34

To tell you the truth I switched the numbers around and didn't change them.

Cpt. Crinkle
Shot First

A6 Standard
Location : Sector 2
Posts : 1219
Sector 2

USO

Back to top Go down

Re: God vs Science?

Post  0001 on 3/17/2010, 11:46

@Joe: Whatever, it's around in there anyways. Razz

_________________
"Don't use foul or abusive language. Let everything you say be good and helpful, so that your words will be an encouragement to those who hear them." -Ephesians 4:29, NLT
avatar
0001
Executive Director

Executive Director
Location : Junction City, Oregon
Posts : 4044
Sector 2

Central Command

Back to top Go down

Re: God vs Science?

Post  80-0 on 3/17/2010, 13:50

Cpt. Crinkle wrote:The 3.4 billion years old comes out of carbon dating and other types of scientific dating. The earth was created at 3.4 billion years and life didn't really come until later. So I bring this back to the idea of we don't know how long the 6 days of creation was. Also humans have been around for about 20,000 years so your beliefs cannot really fit this age of Earth. Sorry about this argument Abl.
Oh! Oh! Oh! You nailed it! Smile Yes, God's timeline in heaven cannot be compared to our timeline here on earth. He could've taken as long as he pleased. So basically, no one can really know how long it took.
avatar
80-0

None
Location : Cold and snowy New York, as always.
Posts : 470
None


Back to top Go down

Re: God vs Science?

Post  Sgt Angry Egg on 3/17/2010, 19:21

astoriabluelegos wrote:No, they could not have evolved, because they are irreducibly complex, meaning that those parts could ONLY function for that purpose, and not any other, therefore making evolution impossible.

Irreducibly complex simply means that if you take away one part, the whole mechanism will fail. I am not disputing this fact. I am saying the parts would have evolved for other functions, entirely unrelated to being a flagellum motor, and only later evolved into said flagellum motor.
If you're interested, this guy makes a good argument against irreducible complexity, while focusing on the flagellum motor.


astoriabluelegos wrote:How exactly were the numbers error prone or too small?
Okay, I admit that I don't remember exactly how. I'll find the video on hulu, and come back to this later.
avatar
Sgt Angry Egg
The Voice of Reason

A6 Standard
Location : Sector 2
Posts : 456
Sector 2

SED

Back to top Go down

Re: God vs Science?

Post  0001 on 3/18/2010, 14:03

Gah, no that is why they are irreducibly complex, because they could not have evolved for any other reason but that one. Mad I'm not really buying what the guy is saying, simply because his purpose is to dispute the creationist theory, not neccesarily prove the science. Wink

@80: Yep, God has his own time. Very Happy


By the way, I'd like to debunk a long held myth, just because the Earth is old, DOES not prove, or validate, the false theory of Evolution.

_________________
"Don't use foul or abusive language. Let everything you say be good and helpful, so that your words will be an encouragement to those who hear them." -Ephesians 4:29, NLT
avatar
0001
Executive Director

Executive Director
Location : Junction City, Oregon
Posts : 4044
Sector 2

Central Command

Back to top Go down

Re: God vs Science?

Post  Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 4 of 4 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum