Science v. Religion Finally Explained Clearly

Anything else
User avatar
tallyl.iii
Posts: 167
Joined: Wed Jun 14, 2006 8:52 pm
Location: Just ask the CIA
Contact:

Science v. Religion Finally Explained Clearly

Post by tallyl.iii » Wed Feb 28, 2007 7:52 am

Gotta love Digg. . .
Image

User avatar
BunnyWithStick
Gramps, Jr.
Posts: 4297
Joined: Mon Dec 05, 2005 12:14 am
Location: New Zealand

Post by BunnyWithStick » Wed Feb 28, 2007 7:57 am

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

User avatar
Usagi
Screenshot Superhero
Posts: 1161
Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2005 11:13 am

Post by Usagi » Wed Feb 28, 2007 8:24 am

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.

Nuky
Plutonium Handler
Posts: 732
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2005 5:34 am

Post by Nuky » Wed Feb 28, 2007 10:08 am

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.

User avatar
invertin
Sticky
Posts: 3828
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 4:05 am
Location: IN A CAN OF AWESOME!

Post by invertin » Wed Feb 28, 2007 10:15 am

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!

Nuky
Plutonium Handler
Posts: 732
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2005 5:34 am

Post by Nuky » Wed Feb 28, 2007 10:19 am

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

User avatar
invertin
Sticky
Posts: 3828
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 4:05 am
Location: IN A CAN OF AWESOME!

Post by invertin » Wed Feb 28, 2007 10:22 am

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.

Kalexon
Kalexon
Posts: 339
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2005 8:46 pm
Location: Serenity

Post by Kalexon » Wed Feb 28, 2007 10:32 am

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.

User avatar
invertin
Sticky
Posts: 3828
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 4:05 am
Location: IN A CAN OF AWESOME!

Post by invertin » Wed Feb 28, 2007 10:45 am

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!

User avatar
Usagi
Screenshot Superhero
Posts: 1161
Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2005 11:13 am

Post by Usagi » Wed Feb 28, 2007 12:01 pm

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!

Silb
Master cartographer
Posts: 558
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2005 10:03 am
Location: Map Guild

Post by Silb » Wed Feb 28, 2007 12:03 pm

Those diagrams look suspiciously scientific to me.

I suspect heresy.

:mrgreen:

(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.)

User avatar
Usagi
Screenshot Superhero
Posts: 1161
Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2005 11:13 am

Post by Usagi » Wed Feb 28, 2007 12:07 pm

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

Nuky
Plutonium Handler
Posts: 732
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2005 5:34 am

Post by Nuky » Wed Feb 28, 2007 12:07 pm

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.

Nuky
Plutonium Handler
Posts: 732
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2005 5:34 am

Post by Nuky » Wed Feb 28, 2007 12:09 pm

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.

wormguy
Posts: 685
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 9:59 am
Contact:

Post by wormguy » Wed Feb 28, 2007 9:02 pm

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.

Post Reply