Topic: The difference between science and religion - page 25. (Read 6507 times)

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.

It's a choice. Either believe in Noah's ark, or believe in termites.

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

I think the biggest difference between the two comes from people's beliefs. People who believe in evidence and things will always choose to believe in science, and those who rely on faith will always devote themselves to religion!

Don't bother arguing with BADLogic

He is the type of person that would believe we found Noah's Ark, long after it was admitted to be a hoax:
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/noah39s-ark-discovery/

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.

Belief in science theories is just like religion. After all, religions have some facts in them just like 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.

Very simple. Science is based on practicals, experiments, theories and laws, while religion is based on belief.

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.

I will tell you what the difference SHOULD be. Religion talk should not be allowed on this forum because this forum is about serious, real world topics.

Religion is a serious topic as long as people commit atrocities in the name of religion.

Science doesn't expect you to take anything on faith.  Everything is science is backed up by evidence you can check yourself.  That is how science works.  If you disagree with the evidence, you have every right to conduct proper research and get your findings published in a reputable periodical.  If your evidence shows you have a better theory for just about anything, you win a nobel prize!

Science doesn't just randomly invent evolution... it simply follows the evidence, and that is the obvious conclusion to the vast majority of people who view the evidence

Except that's a complete lie.

Leslie J. Hoppe (September 2005). New light from old stories: the Hebrew scriptures for today's world. Available here:

"The walls that he and Selling found dated to the seventeenth century BC and earlier - three to five hundred years before the Israelites emerged in Canaan."

"Her excavations showed that the walls found at Jericho were from the Middle Bronze Age (1950-1550 BC). She concluded that when the Israelites supposedly destroyed Jericho, the city was a small, poor, and unwalled settlement.

Miriam C. Davis (2008). Dame Kathleen Kenyon: digging up the Holy Land. Available here:

"In the time of Joshua, Jericho was a heap of ruins on which stood perhaps a few isolated huts."

"No evidence for defenses from the Late Bronze Age, the period of Joshua, was found."


And presumably we are just ignoring the fact that archaeological science has proven the world isn't 6000 years old, wasn't created in 7 days, there was no flood, there was no exodus, etc, etc? Cherry picking much?



Another complete lie.

Firstly, scientific theory does not mean "made up guesses" like you seem to think. Suggesting otherwise is at best disingenuous, and at worst plain stupid. A scientific theory is rigorously tested and fits all the available evidence, such as the theory of gravity, the germ theory of disease, and yes, the theory of evolution.

Secondly, evolution is known to factually exist because of the mountain of evidence for it. But if for some reason all the evidence from fossils, anatomy, molecular biology, genetics, biogeography, paleontology, etc, isn't good enough for you then that's OK - we have literally observed evolution happening in bacteria and insects.


Once again, I would suggest that you take your own advice and aim to achieve even the most basic level of understanding of a topic before offering your opinion on it:

Everybody rejects reality at times. But religious people are looking for the truth just like scientists.

For example. Archaeological science has proven parts of the Bible true. An example is the ancient city of Jericho. Before anybody knew where the ancient city of Jericho was, science said that this Bible story was a myth. Then the archaeologists dug up ancient Jericho, and found that its walls had fallen flat, just like the Bible said.

When you consider all the science theory that has been proven wrong, that is exactly what science theory is there for... to find the truth, by weeding out what is wrong, and determining what is right. But people who believe some science theory to be fact, when it is known to be theory (not necessarily factual, because it can change, and often does), are treating the science theory like a religion.

An example of this is the evolution idea. Evolution theory is science theory, subject to change, based on new discoveries. But many people believe that evolution is true when the only place it is factually known to exist is in the theory itself. Such people have a religion in evolution through believing that evolution theory applies to reality in a factual way. Much of science is like this.

So, while there are science facts, and while there are religious facts, there is also science that is believed like it was a religion, and there is a science of religion because many people study religion to find out what part of it is real.

Religious people reject reality all the time, why would this be any different?

I will use an example from medical science.  Ancient Romans used tools for surgery on cataracts of the eye.  After the fall of Rome, this science was lost, but rediscovered in modern times.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VTKTq-fnUFQ

People will always have eye problems, and if the science for eye-glasses was lost, that would be reinvented eventually.  Someone will realize that a curved piece of glass warps light in a way that can be beneficial.

Even the first "inventions", the wheel and fire, would be reinvented if lost.  Wheels are useful, people will rediscover how to make a wheel.  It will be just like all the other wheels of the previous generations.  All the science would return one step at a time.

Physics would return the same if lost.  The force of gravity would be the same.  We would discover orbits of planets, and that the Earth revolves around the sun because of gravity.  All this would return exactly the same as before.

Religion is the thing which would return in a completely different form.  Religions today are nothing like religions of the past

I reject this.

Regarding religion. The assertion is an impossibility. "Destroy them?"

A huge part of human experience, in it's history, literature, and even grammar cannot be "destroyed." Communist nations have tried to do this, they failed. So you would predicate a logical conclusion on an impossibility. That has no meaning.

Regarding science. It's often debated whether math is a science. Many things are called science which do not fit your criteria. "Social sciences," political science...Economics...

Many cases can be cited where "science" is influenced by social factors. Examples are the Russian Lysenko and his work, current "climate science," current and past psychology "science."

Many, many other examples. 19th century Phrenology, Piltdown Man, phlogiston. Science always reflects the ignorance and superstition of its times.

Both religion and science are ways of life living which ideally should effect positive changes and impact lives positively too but what differenciate science totally from religion is the high tendency of science to always and aptly revolve with time and modern warfare inventions which isn't corruptible but progressive while religion most times anytime it strives to be possessive and devoid of the real and through values due to the human conceptions and perceptions of different idealogies which makes it tends to be corruptible sometimes.

How do you feel about some of the other things written in the bible, like:

Deuteronomy 21:18-21  "If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, ... all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die"

Killing a child for being "stubborn and rebellious" seems a bit extreme if you ask me.  It is also illegal, so please don't follow this biblical advice (from god?!?)

Deuteronomy 22:28–29 "If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found, then the man who lay with her shall give to the father of the young woman fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he has violated her. He may not divorce her all his days."

I personally do not think a woman should be forced to marry her rapist.  How much is a 50 shekel fine these days anyway?

Your analogy is flawed.


There are plenty of non-physical concepts or processes - gravity, calculus, our senses - where we cannot show "where they are", but still have overwhelming evidence that they exist. To say having senses is proof of a god is nonsense. Additionally, your analogy is not specific to a particular god. It equally applies to Zeus and the Flying Spaghetti Monster as it does to any other god.