Are Science and Religion Incompatible?

[madviking]

random
That is, you totally don't take the EMPTY land ecosystem into account.
It was basically a situation, when any newly born animal, whatever its genes, was getting a wide range of places to adapt to.
So, almost any mutation would still survive, regardless of how fit it was to actually compete.
It's like playing Civ alone, on a Giant map.
Except your every city has unique genetics, and they don't even compete.
We could never TEST such a situation, but we can't also dismiss a possibility of such.

Your knowledge of science is trollishly bad. Not amount of help (as in, the last three freakin' pages) can help you.

I'm outta here.

 

[civ2]

random
I'm in no need of HELP.
Atheism is in a need of PROOF.

 

[Crezth]

Since when has atheism needed to prove anything? It is the null hypothesis.

 

[History_Buff]

This assumes that there were no changes in the Earth's parameters ever since.
We can't KNOW it, but only ASSUME.
Use proper names for different things.

Except that there is absolutely no reason to believe that they have. They certainly haven't changed since we've been around to write about it. Hell, they probably haven't changed ever, since we can watch stars at various points in time, and they all play by the same rules.

They all ran the same mathematical program.
Of course they got the same results.
But who said that the PROGRAM is not an error?

I'm not actually sure what you mean here. If you mean the math is wrong, then you don't understand math. Math has no basis in the physical world. It is derived from axiomatic principles everyone agrees on. In that sense it can't possibly be wrong, since it doesn't change. And it does describe radioactive decay.

If you mean some sort of computer program, then it should discomfort you to know that you wouldn't really need one for a rough estimate, and the models have been developed independently anyone. One programming error isn't going to contaminate every result.

You still assume, that AT NO POINT IN THE PAST, there could NOT be an event that changed something drastically.
And we can't even know, when it happened.
So, we can't even say, which results are depending on this, and which are not, thus correct.

Actually, I'm nearly certain that something did. When you melt the rocks, their clock 'resets' to an extent, because the concentration of various elements and isotopes is free to change again. Which is why most rocks will date much younger than 4.5BY. Yet we have many that are.

And just for the sake of argument, what sort of event would have changed the radiometric dating results. Particularly one that happened in the last 50 years.

I see nothing TESTED.
I already explained, WHY.
I can write a fancy program, that will mathematically prove to you, that 2+2=6.
I just need to program it, so that 2=3, as a part of the program itself.
Can you test the results? Sure.
Are they really correct? Very funny.

The reason you don't see anything tested is because you're trying not to. Anyone could write a fancy program that told you two equalled three. But it would be incredibly easy to point out that you were trying to obfuscate the problem. The reason math works is because we all agree two doesn't equal three. You can't just ignore it because you can pretend two equals three.

Not wrong - unproven.
Again, using the same wrongly programmed mathematical program will result in the same results countless times.
Yet, the error is in the programming assumptions, not in the testers.
You need to be sure to check the program for wrong assumptions, not JUST the output.
And this exactly means - personal experience of events.
But I'm sure, this example won't change anything - cause "I'm just a stupid fanatic, that knows nothing about science", suuure.

But you are a stupid fanatic. You're just willfully choosing to apply two different standards of proof, based on whether you agree with the outcome. See below.

That's the beautiful part of science, is that is constantly challenges the underlying assumptions. Yet every time we check them, they check out.

As of high taxa hybrids - this actually is a very good support for my idea, that there weren't SO many animals on the Ark.
(And they rapidly evolved/diversified AFTER being released back into the empty ecosystem.)
Meaning, the term "species" is VERY vague and couldn't be used to COUNT those animals, even remotely.

How do you know the Ark was a real thing. That's never been proven. In fact, all the evidence would suggest that it didn't.

 

[rugbyLEAGUEfan]

Atheism is in a need of PROOF.

I can literally see the conductor as he strikes down his hand to signify the final chord . madviking....which thread you headed to ? I'm a comin'

 

[civ2]

Crezth
I totally agree, and that's why it sucks.

 

[Crezth]

What i am saying is, if you care about the principles of truth and proving things, then it should be obvious that the burden of proof is on religion to demonstrate that there is a God or gods.

 

[civ2]

OK, bye.
You can wallow in the fake sense of defeating just another fanatic.
This will bring you no real benefit, like fooling yourself always is.

 

[Crezth]

Agreed on it bringing me no real benefit.

 

[_random_]

random
I'm in no need of HELP.
Atheism is in a need of PROOF.

I'm a Christian, dude. Not sure why you're directing that toward me, unless you're trying to equivocate the theory of evolution with atheism, which is terrible for everyone.

 

[Polycrates]

As of high taxa hybrids - this actually is a very good support for my idea, that there weren't SO many animals on the Ark.
(And they rapidly evolved/diversified AFTER being released back into the empty ecosystem.)
Meaning, the term "species" is VERY vague and couldn't be used to COUNT those animals, even remotely.

random
That is, you totally don't take the EMPTY land ecosystem into account.
It was basically a situation, when any newly born animal, whatever its genes, was getting a wide range of places to adapt to.
So, almost any mutation would still survive, regardless of how fit it was to actually compete.
It's like playing Civ alone, on a Giant map.
Except your every city has unique genetics, and they don't even compete.
We could never TEST such a situation, but we can't also dismiss a possibility of such.

I've been enjoying this trainwreck of a thread from afar, but haha wow...if ever there was an argument for the incompatibility of religion and science, it's these two posts right here

 

[Tycho Brahe]

civ2-type religion certainly can't coexist with science.

 

[History_Buff]

civ2-type religion certainly can't coexist with science.

Agreed.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

3,000,000 people saw god give Moses the ten commandments?

It went viral on jewtube.

 

[bathsheba666]

like fooling yourself always is.

I bow to the expert..

 

[El_Machinae]

It went viral on jewtube.

Yeah, that's my point. No one "saw" Moses get the Commandments from God. Even the way the story is told, we're still taking the word of one preacher that God said that the Earth was created in six days.

 

[AlpsStranger]

Yeah, that's my point. No one "saw" Moses get the Commandments from God. Even the way the story is told, we're still taking the word of one preacher that God said that the Earth was created in six days.

Cue hypocritical teasing of Mormons just because they made the mistake of failing to place their magic tablets far enough into the mists of history.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I never got the point of six days either. Why not instantly. Why dither? It has to be the human limited imagination in that day on what an almighty god would be capable off and a realisation that: "God created everything in a split second" doesn't make much of a Genesis story.

Instead they already had the 7 day week in place courtesy of the Babylonians and clearly moulded the story to fit that.

 

[Lone Wolf]

It went viral on jewtube.

JewTube actually exists? I thought it is just a word people use when they want to imply that YouTube is controlled by the Jews.

 

[AlpsStranger]

I never got the point of six days either. Why not instantly. Why dither? It has to be the human limited imagination in that day on what an almighty god would be capable off and a realisation that: "God created everything in a split second" doesn't make much of a Genesis story.

Instead they already had the 7 day week in place courtesy of the Babylonians and clearly moulded the story to fit that.

I think I know why. If they don't stick to the strict literal reading they are open to other "attacks" on extreme theology. Once you are willing to read the Bible with "common sense" you might walk away with one of the following unspeakable opinions:

-Universal Reconciliation
-Annihilationism/Conditional Mortality
-Marcionism
-Versions of Hell that don't involve fire

and many others.

Once you don't simply take the Bible by rote then people are prone to projecting their own morality onto God. As an outsider looking in I can somewhat understand this. Belief in literal eternal hellfire is the most monstrous position imaginable, and people are going to wiggle out of it as soon as they aren't held to a 100% literal standard.

On the other hand, the zealous true believer thinks that 95% of humanity will burn in unspeakable agony for an endless period of time. If he's *really* faithful he actually enjoys the thought, but few can "rise" to this level. Most simply manage to compartmentalize God's unspeakable wrath and go about selling fire insurance to anyone who will buy it.

Of course, eternal megatorture for finite "crimes" only seems immoral because we're fallen, rebellious humans who hate justice. The little old Buddhist lady in your apartment complex clearly deserves to be immersed in fire forever.