Topic: The difference between science and religion - page 20. (Read 6621 times)

I don't think so.

I am quite familiar with modern weather forecasting. It's quite good up to 10 days, and this has came to be by using supercomputers.

Weather forecasting is not "a feat" but it is impossible for it to be a thing that could be claimed to be done by a religion.

Science is the physical explanation of our natural world while religion is a supernatural revelation of our natural world.
This I believe will be difficult for the atheist to believe because he does not believe in the existence of God and might also be difficult for those who are opposed to christianity to believe. But as a Christian scientist, I believe and can proof reasonably that both are different means to one end.

From the creation account, after God created man, being just, he didn't leave him ignorant of his natural world and how to interact with it. However, when man disobeyed God, theologians believe he, God, destroyed the garden of Eden, but I rather think that is a figurative speech. "What is so special about this garden that man will miss?" I will always ask. I think what the scriptures meant by destroying the garden must be "the destruction or withdrawal of the knowledge of how man can interact with his immediate environment. And when he said that he will toil and till the ground before he can eat, I believe he, God, meant man will suffer before he will regain mastery of the Earth. And don't just start blaming God and seeing him as wicked because every system that wants to maitain balance must have checks and consequences for going against the rules. Bitcointalk forum has, your country has, mine has too. Check the crime rate in countries that have decided to relax theirs and compare it with those of the countries that have decided to enforce theirs religiously, may be you will understand why God did what he did. That was the premise on which religion and science were born. HOW?
Remember science is defined as a body of knowledge or a systematic enquiry into nature. When Man's knowledge was withdrawn, he started doing things by trial and error. Things that worked were celebrated. The process leading to such result was preserved and handed over to the next generation. Gradually, man's knowledge of the principles guiding his environment grew to what we know today as science. BUT WHAT HAS THAT GOT TO DO WITH religion?
Remember man's mastery of his natural environment was a very slow one. There are archeological proofs of ancient communities that once existed but somehow went into extinction for reasons no one can clearly asertain till date but with high belief that most cases were due to adverse conditions. That means man must have gone through monstrous ordeals to come this far. However, God in his infinite mercies could not sit and watch his creation suffer. But he could not reverse his judgement because he is just so he had to release information about how to survive through some difficult situations to some persons who will share the idea with his community. When this idea works the community in appreciation will set up a system of appreciating the source of such revelational knowledge and that was how religious worship emanated. So the people will continue with the practice for their survival until someone could explain it physically then when it's physical explanation has been gotten people will start working on it to see how they could apply the process to other situations. Therefore, through religion, man knew that some heights were scalable. And by explaining revelational knowledge later on using physical parameters gotten through observation, he knew he could solve more problems by studying events that happen around him. Thus, religion inspired scientific advancement.
Now, because man has seen so much development via scientific advancement, he then thinks religion is bluff. There are several things happening in our present day, that men predicted accurately several years back without scientific aid. Today, meteorologist forecast weather conditions and the world is celebrating. In my traditional religion, there are so many feats these men achieve at a lower cost than using scientific methods. Examples include finding missing items, controlling weather condition etc.
I am not relegating any of the above mentioned issues to the background but I am only saying that while both are means to same end, religion inspired scientific advancements. And religion is still ahead of science in helping man understand and subdue his challenges. Don't get it twisted because of bigots that have made a mess of religion.

Most religions seem to be incompatible with each other.

Religious nut jobs are forever killing every one else in the name of their one true god, same cant be said about mathematicians.

Science in a way starts and closures with human interest to specific inquiries. These inquiries prompts revelations yet in the event that you ask me, those disclosures are not simply arbitrary event but rather fated supernaturally to be so. Religion then again depends on confidence in the heavenly that may not require logical demonstrate to confirm it. It exists in itself.
As you probably are aware, we are made of fragile living creature and soul. No one has ever demonstrated that we are made of spirits. We can see our tissue. We can't see our soul. We can feel it. When we dream, we realize what we can see and we comprehend that we are not just fragile living creature and bones. It is in this way evident that science and religion must cooperate to find and settle the puzzles of our human advancements. They should not battle but rather coordinate.

You mean like Lt Gen Leslie Groves, son of a pastor, who directed the Manhattan project? Or J. Robert Oppenheimer, a Jew, who was lead scientist? Or maybe Robert Serber, also a Jew, who wrote The Los Alamos Primer?

Not only were the morals of the religious not trying to stop the development, but they were the ones who were in charge of the development.

Another 100% made up lie brought to you by BADecker. Do you not realize that people know how to use Google? Your nonsense can be refuted by a 5 year old.

Just stop... stop making up lies... please

If you want people to believe in your religion... you should stop lying... your book says not to lie

Pics or it didn't happen

It was the morals of the religious that were trying to stop the scientists who were developing the first atomic bombs, which were used to kill and maim hundreds of thousands of Japanese people, and cause crippled children and grandchildren because of atomically "burned" reproduction organs.

That is really what confuses me alot. If they hypothesis was based on the scientific method conducted by the scientists therefore both theorom were just a possibility. Which one will I believing if both hypothesis have solid evidences.

That only shows that science is not consistent because if thats the caseI believe that both scientists should came up with the same hypothesis.

Note that the only constant in this world is change.


If that is the case that scientists will just based their hypothesis to their beliefs then the study is not a fact

The history of science is full of wrong ideas, and of their eventual rejection.

The way to understand, ask what is a scientific hypothesis?

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothesis

There is little more than this, except that various social and political factors certainly can influence science.

An example is "global warming." There is no formulated hypothesis capable of being tested, yet it is widely considered science. It is more accurately a "belief."

A scientist can belief in many things which are not testable by scientific hypothesis.

So is religion? There are a lot of different way of expressing it but it is still constant how does that sound








Then why is it that scientists explains different theories. For example to where did humans originated.

Some do say we originated from monkeys. While others say we came from fish. Both of them provided some "solid evidence" aswell.

And how will you explain to me that maybe if not half, a lesser number of total scientists believes the existence of god even if they can't provide a solid evidence.


Just from the philosophy that simply science can't explain anything.
Does that mean that scientists themselves are not consistent?  

I have some news for you, the fact that science is unchanging is not inconsistent with the fact that scientific representations vary when expressed in differing human languages (including but not limited to number systems) and is not inconsistent with the fact that our understanding of science evolves.

The maths is constant its just a different way of expressing things.

Ever heard the expression "a rose is still a rose by any other name" - same thing.

When scientists disagree, they publish papers with evidence and experiments to back up their claims... the winner gets a nobel prize

When religions disagree, they kill each other... nobody wins

I think why religion can be taught as not universal because it is more of subjective while science is objective, that's why it becomes universal. I agree that the religion of today is not the sam with the future because beliefs of human is always changing. What humans believe today will be change. In comparison, science and mathematics is something that won't be change in the future. I am pointing out to those universally accepted concepts. Thus, I think the difference of two is that religion is subjective whereas science is objective.

Wrong cause in the binary system 1+1 = 10. Therefore mathematics is also evolving and changing just like religion

Science was discovered or created by mortals. Yes science provide evidences. Tho it changes over time when a new scientists discover new evidences.

Therefore science is not constant. Just like the "scientific theory" on how the universe created. There are a lot of them eg:  Bigbang theory and most of them provided evidence.

Now the question is which one to believe?
The best thing in this planet that i really love is that science can't provide evidence on its creator.

Which boils down to alot of philosophers and scientists to believe that there is someone immortal who created everything.

Disregard religion since most of it believes that there is really someone looking up there.

Science is study according to the facts on what is existing. They discovered how everthing happens, how it moves, what will be the result and their giving conclusions in every experiment or study they make.
Religion is based on the Bible where everything are indicated, from the beginning of the world and the prediction on what will happen in future.
Religion and science are sometimes contradict because the conclusions of the scientists are different with what is in telling the Bible. But as the time goes by, there are studies that the science are mistakenly written and proved that what is written in the Bible are all true.
Bible is really a miracle that cannot comprehend by science

So the grand total of your evidence is two articles and one newspaper clipping, all written by the same guy, a known science denier and creationist (read: idiot), who never excavated the site. The best quote from those three nonsense articles is this:

"When the archaeology is correctly interpreted, however, the opposite is the case."

How convenient that he is the only one who can correctly interpret the data! How convenient! It's just a shame his interpretation is completely at odds with the evidence, the reports of the people who did actually excavate the site, and the wider scientific community.

Also, as a side note, when asked for evidence to back up your ramblings, linking to even more incoherent ramblings that are shunned by the scientific community is not really an effective tactic. Try some real evidence next time.

---

Also, do you actually believe Noah's ark is a true story? As in, you actually believe that all the animals in the world lived within walking distance of Noah's house? And after the flood, he toured the world in his boat, dropping the penguins off in the Antarctic, kangaroos off in Australia and raccoons off in America?

This is so stupid it cannot be believed by a thinking person.

You ARE having your troubles, today, aren't you.

Regarding Jericho, for starters:
- http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2008/05/Did-the-Israelites-Conquer-Jericho-A-New-Look-at-the-Archaeological-Evidence.aspx
- http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2008/06/The-Walls-of-Jericho.aspx
- https://www.nytimes.com/1990/02/22/world/believers-score-in-battle-over-the-battle-of-jericho.html

Regarding age of the universe, you can find the papers of the scientists who started the idea of an old universe, where they claim exactly that nobody knows the age for sure, and that an old universe was set as a method for organizing scientific things... not because it had to do with the actual age of the universe.

Regarding evolution, a creation model easily matches all the evidence claimed for an evolution model; so, which is it? The exactness of complex cause and effect destroys the possibility of such a thing as random mutations suggested by evolution theory. Natural selection as suggested by evolution theory would have to be so extremely complex to produce life, that it would be way beyond human selection... as we can see by man's failed ability to create life from scratch; such indicates God rather than evolution. The flaw in suggesting that it was the long length of time that allows beneficial mutation accumulation, is that exact same length of time allows the greatly more prevalent natural corrections and detrimental mutations to destroy all the beneficial mutations.

You need to think a little rather than always allow yourself to be led by some kind of propaganda-filled political science.

Except there aren't. Everyone who has excavated that site agrees that the Biblical story of Joshua and Jericho is nonsense.


Except they aren't.


Except it isn't. If you want to be taken seriously, try presenting some evidence to back up your claims, like I did.


No, it absolutely can't.


You can waffle your unfounded nonsense as long as you like, but if you can't provide a single shred of evidence to support any one of your opinions, then they are just that - opinions. Not facts. Not the truth. Just baseless, incorrect, opinions. Exactly what we have all come to expect from you.

So you are just ignoring my previous post exposing everything you said to be a lie?

Standard religious behavior. I expected nothing and I am still disappointed.