You think? The black hole and the hot spot look the same to me. Or are they the same..
Do people still believe in Hell?
- Thread starter Jayson1
- Start date
The universe and religion aren't the same thing. It's a pretty fundamental error to conflate the two.
A
Amaris
Guest
When you say "compare creation with what science has made," what do you mean specifically? Because it sounds like you're putting human ingenuity up against the universe itself, which would be an absurd comparison to make.
You are missing the point, science and religion are fundamentally different concepts, one dealing with the processes that occur within our universe, that which is objectively measured, the other is about a personal belief in the unprovable. To compare "what they have created" is disingenuous. Neither science nor religion have created anything, nor do either propose to.
The universe, or how it came into being (or even if that idea truly makes any sense), is not "religion". Religion is a human concept which attempts to make sense of that. Science is a human concept that presumes some manner of objective truth can be inferred. Applying those truths to create something is not science, it is engineering.
There is no "versus" between science and religion, not until people missapply the labels and make assumptions based on that error. This isn't pedantry, people have literally died because others made that mistake.
Ok, read this whilst typing the above. If you are just going to be silly is it really fair to have people waste their time trying to explain things?
The universe, or how it came into being (or even if that idea truly makes any sense), is not "religion". Religion is a human concept which attempts to make sense of that. Science is a human concept that presumes some manner of objective truth can be inferred. Applying those truths to create something is not science, it is engineering.
There is no "versus" between science and religion, not until people missapply the labels and make assumptions based on that error. This isn't pedantry, people have literally died because others made that mistake.
Ok, read this whilst typing the above. If you are just going to be silly is it really fair to have people waste their time trying to explain things?
Do you ever wonder how everything has just come together the way it has? The complexity of human biology for example? I despair at the moment that my brother-in-law is suffering cancer and science cannot replace his body parts. Then I think how amazing the design of the human body is and that we as human beings will never be able to copy it. The environment we live in, the world .. all of it cannot be some random colliding of molecules. It is a design a Creation.
Human ingenuity is (in my opinion) not all that.
Human ingenuity is (in my opinion) not all that.
Actually I just simply don't agree with you. I don't believe science is smugly and always measurable and that religion is all in one's head as a concept. Much of science is theory.
And I WAS being serious. Someone shows me a pretty picture and I'm supposed to believe it? So if I show you a picture of a Jesus with a label that wouldn't be silly?
A
Amaris
Guest
I did wonder, and then I studied texts that explained how humans evolved to their current state. Now I have a good understanding of how we gained that complexity.
While I sympathize with you about your brother, we find new ways, every day, to combat diseases such as cancer, and have made great strides in finding new ways to extend people's lives in the process, and that's what it is, a process. It takes time to discover, research, and innovate.
We can now clone many different animals, from simple cells. The human animal isn't that much more complex than they, and in some cases less complex.
That is an unsupported assertion. You will have to cite evidence for such a claim.
You ponder, as you type this on a complex computation machine that turns the signal into electricity, sent out in packets over a massive network of information exchange systems, so that it can be instantaneously read by billions of people anywhere around the globe.
I'm sorry but although the Internet is cool, it doesn't impress me as much as the Creation of.. everything. I still have never had anyone make sense of how 'we' came about and random combinations of DNA from the primeval sludge seems way to co-incidental to me. Everything is too put together to not be a plan, a creation.
That is just my view and I seriously don't mean to disrespect yours.
That is just my view and I seriously don't mean to disrespect yours.
A
Amaris
Guest
You're going to have to cite evidence that the universe was created. To wit, in all honesty, your lack of understanding when it comes to basic science does not apply to everyone. Yes, you're free to believe whatever you wish, but when you try to rebut science with warm fuzzies and ignorant wonder, it will fall short every time in the areas where it needs to stand firm the most: evidence.
Then why bother repeating it when someone disagrees with your asserted statement, and asks you to cite evidence? You didn't frame it as an opinion, or simple point of view, you declared it the way things were, and that science couldn't answer questions that science has clearly answered if one looks a single micron beneath the surface.That is just my view and I seriously don't mean to disrespect yours.
Again, you seem to believe there's some competition here where none exists. There is no religion v science, nor is there a nature v human ingenuity. Both are strawman arguments.
I'm sorry to hear about your brother but your argument could equally work in the opposite direction, pointing out how fallible the human body and nature's creation is. We are a long way from perfect and although we could not build a human body from scratch equally we can see how one could be a lot more efficient, evidence of the somewhat random and chaotic natural processes that led to our being the way we are. Amazement at the complexity of nature is not evidence of anything.
No, science is a process. Nothing more. Theory and hypothesis are part of that process.
The end result of the process is our best approximation of truth having eliminated all other viable or testable hypotheses.
Religion quite explicitly decries the need for evidence. That's exactly what faith is, belief without proof.
Neither are invalid, just two different concepts which in truth have little, if any, bearing on each other.
Except your comment was posted in reply to my mentioning gravity wells, not Locutus's diagram about X ray emissions, two entirely separate things. Either you are getting confused about who you are posting to or you just aren't bothering to read the actual content of those posts.
My point was simple, you don't have to believe in black holes based on an equation. They observably exist.
The universe is huge. Complex life is not observably common, in fact it is almost vanishingly rare. We are a microdot of statistical improbability in a vast ocean of entropic decay. There's no reason to extrapolate some form of plan based on that model, nor is there reason to discount one.
That we came into being as a result of natural selection is now so far beyond reasonable doubt as to make any alternate case ludicrous, but that in itself is not a statement about religion v science, nor about the existence of a higher being, merely an observation about that being's methodology.
A
Amaris
Guest
You haven't offended me, I'm genuinely curious at the way you phrased your posts. When I was a devout Christian, I was very aware of the subtle emphases on words and phrases to passive-aggressively flip the middle finger to non-believers, the tone that I would use to indicate my flippancy about their points of view without actually appearing flippant, leaving their replies in doubt about my sincerity. I'm not saying you're doing it here, just that I'm familiar with the tactic.
It is a right, one which no one here has questioned.
What they HAVE questioned is your assumption that said beliefs are in any way in conflict with the validity of the scientific model. A model which has led to the very technology you are using to post in this forum.
Golly your last paragraph is reflective of a bias that you are allowed but is not a statement of fact.
You are trying to analyse and refute faith. That is impossible.
Again I am sorry if I have offended but I guess it happens when people who have a religious belief assert it.
I think non-believers have a right to be as such, and can take care of themselves.. I would NEVER presume to convert another. I want the good stuff all to myself
Okay.. do you want me to say the Internet is God? Fat chance, lol! Just want to say I have a sense of humor before I get banned for being religious and irreverent..
A
Amaris
Guest
That's a rather awful thing to say.I think non-believers have a right to be as such, and can take care of themselves.. I would NEVER presume to convert another. I want the good stuff all to myself
I feel it would be best for me to move on from this particular tangent in which we find ourselves. It will lead nowhere fruitful. Good luck to you.
No it isn't. Natural selection happens. That isn't a bias, it's observably correct. How you evaluate the facts in relation to your belief system is up to you.
Actually I'm not. You are again making strawman arguments. I'm fine with faith.
My case is that you, along with many others, are missapplying that faith in putting it in opposition to scientific methodology.
People have been persecuted for their religious beliefs throughout history. They have been tortured and killed. Please do not dishonour their suffering by playing that card here.
You have not been persecuted, on the contrary you have been shown a way your beliefs can sit perfectly well with the scientific method without the conflict only you are claiming exists.
You have made a weak case to support a strawman argument then attempted to claim intolerance when people point this out. Nothing more, nothing less.
Oh do stop being ridiculous.
Spot, tolerance and accepting people think differently than you is a good thing. It is part of what makes the world go around. You cannot presume to refute me in point by point fashion into making a case against what I believe. It is just what it is and as such is good enough for me. Calling me ridiculous when I was trying to lighten the mood is almost .. mean.
I just had to source back in this thread for something like this.
I am not ashamed, in the slightest.
Similar threads
