Religious/Evolutionary Debate Thread

[bobtheking]

God is perfect, therefore, His Word is also perfect.

how is it known that the bible is god's word? how do you know it wasn't just written as fiction?

I can't prove the universe is young any more than you can prove its old.

this is bull****. if we said we believe evolution because darwin said so, we'd be laughed out of the thread. the fact is we've shown TONS of independent evidence here for why it is, and it all corroborates itself. this doesn't even come close to all of the evidence that is out there either, we couldn't possibly hope to cover it all here, much less know of it all.

All you can do is brow beat people into believeing your theories and try to make them feel foolish if they don't conform to your ideas. This is how science has operated for thousands of years and how it continues to operate to this day.

religion is an institution based on causing fear in its followers, yet science is the one doing the browbeating?

 

[Stilgar]

"religion is an institution based on causing fear in its followers, yet science is the one doing the browbeating?"

They both seem to do thier fare share.

 

[Mister_Prophet]

You're so sure God exists, then where is he? When was the last time you saw him? Or Her? Or it? Isn't it a tad wierd how he makes his presence known so much in biblical stories yet when was the last time God made contact with the human race? Isn't his absence slightly odd? Name one instance in the last 1000 years where God has made contact with human beings. And I'm not talking about your uncle Steve who swears he was on the toilet one time and he saw God.

 

[bobtheking]

They both seem to do thier fare share.

how so? if there were credible criticisms of things like radioactive dating and such, they would be explored. science wants to get it right, not prove religion wrong. if that leads to creationism, so be it, but at this point, pretty much nothing points that way. gaps in our understanding does not mean god by default. the gaps will be filled eventually.

 

[Stilgar]

"science wants to get it right"

Science is a method and is innate, and thus does not want anything. Scientists want things, and they can be scaremongers. Look at global warming. Predictions of doom have been exagerrated I'm sure (don't ask for a link, I don't care that much, I'm just going from memory) Is this not scaremongering?

It is fair to say that this kind of scaremongering is not a direct result of the scientific, rational method, right? With that in mind, is it fair to say religous scaremongering is not caused directly by the idea of (institutionalised) religion, but by religous people? So it is not as simple as saying "Oh but religion is like this, and that's not good!"

Yes, I'm devaiting from your discussion. When you said "Science wants" I guess you were really talking about the scientific community at large and thier thirst for finding truth. In the interest of fairness however, I thought it wise to be specific. Regarding an age of the universe theory, I would choose scientific method over an old book of psalms and fables any day of the week.

 

[QUALTHWAR]

You're so sure God exists, then where is he? When was the last time you saw him? Or Her? Or it? Isn't it a tad wierd how he makes his presence known so much in biblical stories yet when was the last time God made contact with the human race? Isn't his absence slightly odd? Name one instance in the last 1000 years where God has made contact with human beings. And I'm not talking about your uncle Steve who swears he was on the toilet one time and he saw God.

lol. I’ve asked this question before to a minister or something many years ago. I remember him saying that our society has become so full of sin, or bad, or something like that, that he doesn’t reveal himself anymore.

That does seem odd. You’d think if god represents good, that’s when you’d need him most.

And it seems odd because years ago, people didn’t get fair trials or any trial for that matter. It seems like people were more barbaric back then.

 

[bobtheking]

Science is a method and is innate, and thus does not want anything. Scientists want things, and they can be scaremongers. Look at global warming. Predictions of doom have been exagerrated I'm sure (don't ask for a link, I don't care that much, I'm just going from memory) Is this not scaremongering?

yes, i should have been more specific about science. on the global warming thing, i don't think predicted temperatures have been exagerrated. sure there are people like michael crichton, but he is not a scientist and doesn't claim to be (as far as i know). i never said people don't use and manipulate science to their ends, and this does happen a lot with global warming.

It is fair to say that this kind of scaremongering is not a direct result of the scientific, rational method, right? With that in mind, is it fair to say religous scaremongering is not caused directly by the idea of (institutionalised) religion, but by religous people? So it is not as simple as saying "Oh but religion is like this, and that's not good!"

here i disagree. doesn't the bible state that you will go to hell for certain acts/beliefs (yes, i agree some of the acts the bible addresses are perfectly hell worthy, but not all of them)? i'm asking a question here, i don't know for sure, but i'm pretty sure it does. thats the impression i get from religious people. hell, we saw at least 5-10 examples of this in this very thread from at least 2 or 3 different people.

to clarify, science to me means basically means the knowledge generated by scientific processes. scientists that create this knowledge obviously want it to be right, regardless of whether it contradicts religion or not. how people use/manipulate this knowledge is a separate thing, and i very much agree its pretty bad. the problems with the ethics of the medical industry pointed out earlier, global warming scares, etc. are a result of this IMO.

i also agree there are many scientists that do have agendas, but this is not as big a problem as creationists would like to believe. no falsified or otherwise manipulated conclusions will last long.

 

[QUALTHWAR]

"science wants to get it right"

Science is a method and is innate, and thus does not want anything. Scientists want things, and they can be scaremongers. Look at global warming. Predictions of doom have been exagerrated I'm sure (don't ask for a link, I don't care that much, I'm just going from memory) Is this not scaremongering?

Most scientists aren’t running around trying to scare people. That’s mostly media such as magazines and the like where they post articals about the effects of global warming.

The scientists are basically describing their findings and making predictions. It’s just that in this case, the predictions happen to be a scary thing.

Science knows that a runaway greenhouse effect could doom us all. Not all scientists think this will happen, but many more thought this was possible years ago before the stricter pollution standards. As a side note, you can thank scientists for helping clean up your air because their data did help to make an impact.

Even the scientists that don’t believe we’ll have a runaway greenhouse effect are still concerned about other effects on the planet. Here are just a few facts science has gathered:

The average global temperature for 2004 of 14.60 degrees Celsius (58.28 degrees Fahrenheit) makes it the fourth warmest year on record. October and November of 2004 were the hottest of those months on record since recordkeeping began in 1880. February of 2004 was the second warmest, and March, April and December were the third warmest of those three months.

These record-breaking readings, which come from the global series maintained by NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, continue a trend of rising global temperatures. The average temperature of 14.01 degrees Celsius in the 1970s rose to 14.26 degrees in the 1980s. In the 1990s it reached 14.40 degrees. And during the first five years of this new decade, it has averaged 14.59 degrees Celsius.

In fact, the five hottest years on record have all occurred within the last seven years.

Rising temperatures are due primarily to the buildup of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere from the burning of increasing amounts of fossil fuels. Once released into the atmosphere, CO2 traps heat that would otherwise escape back into space. And emissions of CO2 have been rising since the start of the Industrial Revolution in 1760, causing temperatures to climb.

During the past century, temperatures rose 0.6 degrees Celsius, with most of the increase occurring during the last three decades. But the average global temperature is projected to rise 1.4—5.8 degrees Celsius by 2100, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a global body of more than 1,500 scientists. The increase is expected to occur unevenly, with higher elevations and higher latitudes experiencing greater temperature changes than lower elevations and equatorial regions.

There is little question that a global temperature increase in the upper range of predictions would be highly disruptive. A report prepared for the U.S. Department of Defense in 2003 investigated the security implications of abrupt climate change over the next 20 years. One scenario showed that rising temperatures could bring large-scale drought in critical agricultural regions worldwide, extreme temperature drops in some regions and searing heat in others, and civil unrest and mass migrations from spreading insecurity about water and food supplies.

Even at the lowest projected temperature increases, climate change models predict more frequent and more severe storms, floods, heat waves, and droughts—all of which affect ecological biodiversity, human health, and economic security. Indeed, although we have only experienced temperature increases of a half-degree Celsius over the past several decades, the effects of climate change can already be seen in different parts of the world.

In May 2003, for example, 1,600 people died in a record heat wave in India, where death tolls from heat in the thousands are no longer uncommon. Three months later, another 35,000 people died in Europe from a heat wave that lasted for weeks. The record-breaking temperatures damaged crops across the continent, contributing to a 13 percent drop in the European grain harvest that year.

Warmer winters, increased precipitation, and earlier springs are causing certain plant species to bloom several weeks earlier, disrupting insect food supplies and plant pollination cycles. Some animals are responding to warmer temperatures with shortened hibernation cycles, sometimes up to 23 days earlier than just 15 years ago, putting them at risk for starvation as they wait for spring food to become available. Temperature changes have led to shifts in many species’ habitats as populations move north and to higher elevations in search of cooler temperatures; it is estimated that about half of all wild species in the United States have already been affected by climate change.

Similar effects of rising temperatures are being documented worldwide. Ice and snow cover have shrunk 30 percent in the Himalayas over the past 30 years, increasing risk of flooding and glacial lake overflow. In Europe, spring events such as flower blooms have occurred progressively earlier since the 1960s, while fall events such as leaf color changes have been delayed each decade. These seasonal shifts have introduced species to new areas and disrupted migratory patterns of birds.

A new study by 300 scientists and indigenous leaders from eight countries over four years concluded that the Arctic, where warming has occurred at nearly twice the global average rate, “is now experiencing some of the most rapid and severe climate change on earth.”

Siberia and Alaska have already warmed 2–3 degrees Celsius since the 1950s. Snow cover in the Arctic has shrunk by 10 percent, and summer sea ice cover is 15–20 percent smaller than it was 30 years ago. If these recent trends continue, polar bears are not likely to survive to the end of the century as melting ice shrinks their habitat and compromises their access to food. Tundra and permafrost are also thawing rapidly across the Arctic, threatening the survival of many land species and hampering transportation.

----------------------------------------------------------------

This stuff is no joke. And the really scary part is the projected rise to 1.4—5.8 degrees Celsius by 2100. Just the small rise so far is causing all sorts of problems. I know people up north were I was born and raised and they tell me that they don’t have winters up there like they used to. Winters used get pretty cold with lots of snow, and now there is a significant change.

I don’t know how much of this were responsible for, and how much is just a normal trend, but it’s a safe bet we are helping to contribute to the problem.

 

[QUALTHWAR]

The stuff I posted doesn’t mention the convection cycle of the oceans. Our oceans have these gigantic currents circulating that help to moderate temperatures across the planet.

What happens is water near the poles gets very cold and salty and it gets very dense. This makes the northern mass of water sink to the bottom of the ocean floor and it doesn’t really mix much with surrounding water. It just keeps creeping along the ocean floor, moving almost as if it were contained inside a pipe for thousands of miles. As this mass gets closer to the equator, it warms up and now has been diluted enough by its long journey that it’s not as salty or dense and it rises up towards the surface. This cooler water mixes with the warmer water and cools things down somewhat. This helps to keep the temperatures near the equator cooler.

As the dense water sinks near the poles, it creates a void and warmer waters from southern regions flow north to fill that void. This brings warmer waters north and helps keep the northern regions from getting far colder.

Scientists are worried if the temps keep rising near the poles, the water isn’t going to get dense enough to sink, and this gigantic moderating conveyor system will stop. If this happens, northern regions could get extremely cold, and southern regions could get extremely hot. I don’t know how many of you live in Europe, but they said the conveyor system is what accounts for the warmer moderating climate you have now. If the cycle stops, Europe could get very cold.

 

[Stilgar]

Qualth: I agree, the facts are there. I don't understand some of the concepts, but I get the gist. What I was saying(to bob) was "hey, it's not as if science doesn't have a few bad apples, even if they are few and far between, so try to keep some perspective when getting on your high horse(about religion)"

And...

"It's unfair to make sweeping generalisations such as 'religion is an institution that relies on fear' "

bob: I should have said that I wasn't just referring to organised christianity, but pretty much any group who practice religion in its many forms.

btw when you say "i also agree there are many scientists that do have agendas, but this is not as big a problem as creationists would like to believe. no falsified or otherwise manipulated conclusions will last long." I completely agree, and I think this is the best thing about the scientific method. Bunk conclusions are quickly exposed for what they are.

Apart from the obvious "OMG DOOMSDAY" type stuff, it seems like religion doesn't really have this aspect to it, being a philosophical pursuit. However, I think if people give suffient heed to common sense then it's not too bad.

 

[Stilgar]

heh.. when I said "innate" I was thinking of a different word altogether...

 

[Stilgar]

Was just thinking about the "prove god is real" question...

Let's say, just for arguments sake, god is real, and that god decides to visit qualth in spectral form, and he tells qualth he needs to fight the good fight and choose the path to enlightenment. Understandably, Qualth is shocked. The visitation seemed very real and he knew he wasn't dreaming (lets say he was in public at the time) His life changes forever. His world view is completely throttled by this event.

Now Qualthwar has a big problem. He can't prove this event happened, he can't trust his rational instincts like he used to, and he wants to rationalise the event so that it makes sense in his corporal realm.

He finally decides to come here and tell everyone he met god and god could be real. We know it would be a pointless exercise. Qualth would be dismayed at his inability to prove anything, and It would be no surprise if the vast majority of ppl scoffed at him and called him a nutter/troll or whatever.

Qualth now has some decisions to make. Qualth could dismiss the visitation as an illusion he conjured up in his head. (remember we're assuming god is real) Alternatively, he could embrace christianity and still retain some of his rational ethos. At worst, he goes mad and is admitted.

With this in mind, why would an intelligent god visit anyone in this realm? He knows it's going to be a rather pointless exercise. Even a mass visitation would be fobbed off by sceptics as an act, or the result of chemicals and tricks used to enduce the illusion. If he was feeling optimistic god could speak to everyone and and have all the converts he ever wanted, but he gets plenty on converts without the visitation anway, so why bother?



I think god is a cynic.

 

[bobtheking]

bob: I should have said that I wasn't just referring to organised christianity, but pretty much any group who practice religion in its many forms.

here i should have clarified also. when it comes to organized christians, catholics, protestants, etc. i still stand by the statement that it operates on fear. from what i can tell it is a huge part of their method of control. see this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapture how is this not a massive tool taking advantage of fear? my impression is that the belief in the rapture is fairly widespread, this is exactly the kind of thing i'm talking about. people that believe in jesus go to heaven, the rest of us are doomed to duke it out in the last days. also on the wiki page: "Almost all Christians believe that believers will be taken up to heaven" this is the same thing. believers are taken to heaven, nonbelievers are taken where? hell? scare mongering doesn't get any worse than that.

i've already stated before in this massive thread that i don't have a problem with religions that don't do things like this.

 

[Evil_Cope]

Cat Fuzz once said that I personally and anyone else (no matter how good their deeds in life) will go to Hell if we do not believe in Jesus Christ and the Bible specifically.

What else is this other than a policy of inducing fear to convert people? (not by cat fuzz personally, he was simply telling me his beliefs as drawn from his particular church)

Believe, or else!

 

[Mister_Prophet]

Scientists want things, and they can be scaremongers. Look at global warming.

This line just made me laugh a little. SCIENTISTS are scaremongers? Have you ever been to church? Gone to a Theology class in school?

 

[Mister_Prophet]

And I only say that cus alot of what I remember about it was sin this sin that. I'm really not trying to be a smartass. But While I shouldn't generalize, I can only use what I have experienced myself firsthand of religion(Christianity).

 

[Mister_Prophet]

Cat Fuzz once said that I personally and anyone else (no matter how good their deeds in life) will go to Hell if we do not believe in Jesus Christ and the Bible specifically.

What else is this other than a policy of inducing fear to convert people? (not by cat fuzz personally, he was simply telling me his beliefs as drawn from his particular church)

Cat Fuzz is a little inaccurate in that belief, but then again there are so many versions of Christianity alone it's hard to keep a balance. Clearly some dude who grew up in the forest and who leads a good life helping people and hugging lepers but doesn't ever hear about Christianity cannot be held accountable in God's eyes. If I believed in God I would think he decides who goes into Heaven. Not Cat Fuzz.

 

[Stilgar]

This line just made me laugh a little. SCIENTISTS are scaremongers? Have you ever been to church? Gone to a Theology class in school?

My father took me to church every sunday for years and years when I was young. I don't remember ever being preached to in a way that was supposed to make me fearful. I don't deny the fact that some religion has an aspect of fear mongering.

If you want to cling to the scientist vs theologists string of thought then be my guest, but I wont be blinded to the errs of any side just because one might be worse than the other.

Ok?

 

[Mister_Prophet]

If you want to cling to the scientist vs theologists string of thought then be my guest, but I wont be blinded to the errs of any side just because one might be worse than the other.

Ok?

Actually aside from the this forum I really couldn't give two shiits. It isn't like I make a big deal out of this crap in real life. If this was a PH scale, 1 being religion and 14 being science, I'd be like a 9.

But when you say Scientists are scare mongers when most of my religious upbringing involved me being scared into believing things, I'm gonna make a comment about it

 

[Stilgar]

What's a PH scale :?