Wolfire Games Forums

Gotta love Digg. . .

So true… But what if there is no contradicting evidence?

Good point. I think it should be changed to "Ignore lack of supporting evidence and reject all attempts at inquiry and proof."

And "get an idea" should be "Receive all knowledge from sacred writings passed down from unknown, perhaps mythical, dead people; reject all new ideas as heresy."

There. Done. The world is once again safe from progress.

But who would've written those "holy scriptures"? =P
You looped back to the start again, Usagi.

It should rather be...
Start -> Get a silly idea -> ignore reason and logic and claim no evidence is needed -> Get the idea moving around like a persistent STD -> back to point 3.

Science anyday, anytime.

I'm trying to find a way that science and religion can both be right, although it does mean alot of editing of the bible. But it can be done! Eventually!

You're on the faith side of that illustration, y'know. <.<

According to this faith just ignores it when people try to change they're ideas, I'm trying to change Christanism for the better! So far all I've got is that god created physics, but I'm having trouble making evolution and the bible co-operate.

I don't really think the faith illustration is right, it is for literalists who believe the Bible is literaly true. I know a lot of people who both believe in God, but also recognize Evolution as a dominant theory in the whole creation of the earth.

Evolution
God

Evolution
God

Thats it! Sometimes, a species needed something to keep them alive, so god changed the baby in some way so that it was something else. Hey presto! God and evolution!

No, that's Hey Presto! Intelligent Design! AKA Creationism in a lab coat! AKA Bullshit!

God's intervention in evolution isn't needed to make it work, and there's no evidence for it; that's why Creationists don't like it.

But that doesn't mean there isn't a God; why wouldn't God come up with an amazingly flexible, stunningly complex and beautifully effective system like evolution, instead of some gobbledegook cobbled together to validate a questionable sacred text?

Major mainstream religions all accept evolution. It's only Christian fundamental literalists who believe in biblical inerrancy who have a problem.

Science doesn't have anything to say about religion or God, nor does it need to; religion doesn't have anything to say about science, nor does it need to. They're separate, and should stay that way. Nothing needs to be reconciled.

Nuky wrote:But who would've written those "holy scriptures"? =P
You looped back to the start again, Usagi.

It should rather be...
Start -> Get a silly idea -> ignore reason and logic and claim no evidence is needed -> Get the idea moving around like a persistent STD -> back to point 3.

No, because you can't go back in time to have a silly idea before the seminal silly idea, and now that it's the received wisdom, nobody is allowed to have any more ideas of any kind.

Nuky wrote:Science anyday, anytime.

Absodamntootly!

Those diagrams look suspiciously scientific to me.

I suspect heresy.



(Seriously, this topic is a little sensitive and perhaps we should avoid either avoid it or face it but not make fun of either party. See what happened recently with a Mac/PC debate, which is basically nothing important? Better be careful with actually important stuff.)

I agree. Let's talk about the Evolution of Lugaru.

Actually, invertin, your traits are inheritable, but always difers, which explains why the world isn't filled with deformed weakling creatures. Survival of the fittest.

To your "God created physics" stuff, I've got "Then how did God exist in the first place, if he created existance and all that?". To that you'd prolly say "then how did the universe get created at all?"... "I don't know, but it's better to believe in something that get new plausible theories often, than believing in something there has been no proof of for many thousand years - where nothing happens; which also constantly gets explained scientifically. etc. blah blah."

imho, science and religion doesn't go that well together.

Usagi wrote:

Nuky wrote:But who would've written those "holy scriptures"? =P
You looped back to the start again, Usagi.

It should rather be...
Start -> Get a silly idea -> ignore reason and logic and claim no evidence is needed -> Get the idea moving around like a persistent STD -> back to point 3.

No, because you can't go back in time to have a silly idea before the seminal silly idea, and now that it's the received wisdom, nobody is allowed to have any more ideas of any kind.

Hmmm? Going back to point 3 = keep on ignoring

Edit: sorry for the doublepost.

Oh, boy. Here we go again.

I can't help but point out stuff like Haeckel's embryos as evidence being modified to support a theory.

I think balance is important in all walks of life, and simply slapping labels on the science-religion debate is childish and annoying.