Faith vs. Science

[Apoptosis]

Why does it have to be Faith vs. Science?

Everyone who lives in denial needs a foundation, those who pit science against faith need a basis to justify their sinful nature and ultimately their lifestyle. Science unfortunately, becomes a tool of imoral justification and no longer a tool of education.

Peace

CJ

Our foundation is rational reason, logic, and evidence beyond reasonable doubt.

While it is true that Science and Religion can leave themselves alone, the principles of science (the mindset itself) is in opposite of religion which teaches not to doubt but believe things with no physical evidence. In science, what you believe does not make it true, you could believe with all your heart that the speed of light is not constant does not make the speed of light itself any different. Thats why Science, or rather scientific thinking is especially opposed and mutually exclusive to religious faith based thinking.

You judge of science is flawed, science is not a tool for moral or immoral justification. Moral values is based on reason, and you just like any athiests use it to make moral judgements. For instance, we all consider killing another person is an immoral act because we know its the wrong thing to do, but why its wrong sometimes changes because how you attempt to rationalize it. For atheist it might be because killing the person is counter productive, or it causes more unnecessary suffering for yourself or others, or maybe because you are denying the other's person right to live, a right that we all have, while say a religion person may attribute the rationale to God or Jesus, act of not killing is prefered by a Deity, but then you have to ask yourself WHY do these deities condem violence and attempt to mitigate suffering. Atheist is only cutting the middle man of God and approach the problem in a more direct approach.

If we evolved, why did it stop?

It hasn't stopped. Evolution takes millions and millions of years. There's no way to see it happen.

Why are apes still apes, monkeys still monkeys?

The apes and monkeys that are around today are not the same as the apes and monkeys that were around when early hominid species first evolved. They were different. We didn't evolve from modern-day apes.

I have a question then...where in the fossil record does one find the Pre-Hominid fossils?

There is no evidence whatsoever of a mediary species of these so called "Hominid Species" in the fossil layer.

Believing in the fossil layers is like grabbing a verse out of scripture and implying ones own "extra biblical" interpretation. The Pre-Cambrian and Cambrian layer completely and irrefutably demonstrates that life exploded on the scene with fully developed life forms that still exist today. One has to engage in fantasia interpretation of the fossil layer to conclude human evolution over long periods of time.

The timeline therefore, becomes the basis for shifting the burden of proof (denial) from the evolutionist to the theist... "We say based on the evidence it takes millions of years for evolution to occur...prove us wrong!"

This type of "proof shifting" runs rampant throughout the scientific community, Jan Hendrik Oort, the man who theorized the Oort cloud, Ernst Haeckel the man who tried to prove that human embryos had gill slits which the don't (Link) are just a couple that comes to mind, fortunately Haeckel was proven wrong and Ooorts fantasy is so far fetched that there is no evidence to support it... no difference. The fossils within the fossil record cannot be dated, the dating is done exclusively through the hypothesis that the layers within the Geologic Column were formed over millions of years and that each succesive layer equates to a timeline...pure speculation and cannot be proven. There is no other way other than this theoretical basis of conjecture, to establish a timeline.

The only thing that the fossil layers prove, is that things die. Everything that dies today undergoes decay and decomposition, if the Gelogic Column is accurate, why do we not fossilize today?...where are the fossils for the future generations going to come from if all living species decompose?

Peace

CJ

We have hard time finding this "pre-hominid" remains for mainly two reasons:

1: You are ignoring the fact that Lucy is not the supposed pre-hominid

2: pre-hominid remains are very efficult to preserve over geological times because -

a) Hominid bones are fragile compared to say Dinosaur bones

b) Hominid were never as wide spread and high in population density than other mammals like mice, the more individuals you have the higher the likelyhood of leaving remains around, but when your population is merely a few hundred thousand, its very rare for remains to survive.

c) There is a point of hominid evolution that we stop refering to them as hominids, infact then are then just as more related to chimps than human, and it would be just bad language to still include them in the hominid (branch to human) family. These remains would bare no resemblance to humans, and much more like chimps and other primates we see today. (which people like you reject them as pre-hominid remains just because you dont want to accept it.)

I am not a good source to explain the pre-cambrian life explosion, a person experienced in paleontology would. But I don't see how you could conclude that the "explosion" is contrary to the evolution of the human species, your post is only a statement with no apparent attempt to present your arguement. Plus i don't think you understand the word "explosion" when used on a geological timescale. These species did not just pop out of nowhere in matter of days or centries, or even millenias, but on MILLIONS of years (30 to be exact). Life existed in the oceans for billions of years before that, and the reason why there was an explosion in complex life forms could be the built up of molecular oxygen in the atomsphere and dissolved oxygen in the oceans produced by the algae in the oceans for the billion year before.

I could explain the above on a molecular biology basis. The early atomsphere of the planet is very thin in oxygen, if you know anything about chemistry, you would understand that Oxygen is a very good eletron acceptor and therefor could oxidize other molecules. During an oxidation reaction, a lot of energy is released either in the form of heat (much like burning gas in your truck engines) or in other forms such as mechanical work. When the microorganism in the early life of earth grew, they released tons of molecular oxygen from different molecules such as CO2, Sulfates, NO with the assistance of sunlight via photosynethesis. This gas built up in the atomsphere long enough to reach the required pressure for it to persist into the oceans to a point the oceans becomes more oxygenates. Since the use of oxygen as final electron acceptor in a red-ox reaction released a lot of energy, cells that became capable of using oxygen became VERY successful. When enough energy, more complex life could evolve because cells no longer needs to be surounded by their enviroment, they could be surrounded by other cells, and more cells. This abundance of energy is what caused the "explosion" of life during the 30 million years. The only people engaged in "fantasia" interpretation of evidence would be people who believe someone or something consciously caused this to happen, not scientists who reach for plausible cause via unguided natural laws of physics.

The proof of burden has NEVER shifted, the proof of burden has always been on the party that refutes an idea. This is what science is based on -Falsifiability-, and this has always been the way science has worked. However, unlike religion, we do not BELIEVE in evolution as much that we think it is a plausible method for things become as they are beyond any reasonable doubt, the lack of doubt is based purely on logical arguement, physical evidence, and down to earth explainations that doesnt involve the supernatural. I believe all scientist even if they disagree will agree on one thing, that is, they will change their mind if you can present them irrifutable evidence to the contrary, such as say a very well preserved boat of human construction buried in the precambrian period.

The Fossil records doesnt just get dated because what layer they lie on, the earth crust shift and may dislocate a layer of fossil and it would cause havok in dating, fossils can be dated by radio-dating which has an error of at most a few million years which on a geological timescale isnt really that much. Of course, radio-dating as its own assumptions but you can't rejected because you think we should, you have to come up with evidence for reason why we should reject a perfectly working method, for instance evidence indicating that radio decay is not constant over time or the very early earth has a highly different radio composition than current earth. (the former would come from the field of physics, the latter would come from geology or cosmology.)

Like I said before, the bones of mammals are very fragile compared to dinosaurs and hard for them to survive the millions of years of geological compaction to be fossilized. Even if they did, fossil bones of mice could be passed off by a casual observer as just a odd shaped pebble. We also do not see fossilization because it takes a very long time for fossilization - which is the replacement of minerals of the bones by minerals of surrounding rock or soil. This requires that the sorrounding soil has abundant minerals to fossilize it (dirt doesnt really do it, its too porous and allows even the decomposition of bones) You have to use say cement like material rich in minerals. And I could guarentee you if you were to do that today to a human remain, it will fossilize after a few million years. Future generations would not need to have fossil, we have much better form to store animal life information such as discs, books, pictures, their genome even, (if fact if you store their genome on a disc, they could develop technology to ressurect that living creature to study its physiology.) All of these are much better than fossilization.

Science is evil.

I'm sure it is, considering it only saved a few million if not billions of people from starvation and disease.

Only to later blow them up in high-tech wars.

t.

That't not true, as technology advances there should be less likelyhood of war. Many of you doesn't think so, but consider if you were living in the middle ages, how often do you think your homes will be ravaged by war?

Wars decrease as technology advance for two reasons:

1: Some wars are caused by lack of resources such as land, energy, or food - advancement in technology could solve all of this, removing reasons for war.

2: Some wars are caused by misunderstanding or indoctrination in forms of out group hostility, a more technical society would increase the education and awareness and reasonability of the individual that they would recognize War doesnt solve problems the way thats most productive.

3: Advanced technology allows for more likelihood of MAD, it would be very extremely counter productive for a country to fight a war it knows it wont come out unscathed.

4: even wars did break out, it would be very unlikely for countries to use weapons of mass destruction fearing number 3. Advanced technology allows for precision war with much less civilian casualties.

[ayin jade]

Notice the science is evil comment was made by someone who got banned the same day he became a member. It might be worthwhile to ignore the comment as the rantings of someone who was banned for good reason.

[Floatingaxe]

Notice the science is evil comment was made by someone who got banned the same day he became a member. It might be worthwhile to ignore the comment as the rantings of someone who was banned for good reason.

[ted]

That't not true, as technology advances there should be less likelyhood of war. Many of you doesn't think so, but consider if you were living in the middle ages, how often do you think your homes will be ravaged by war?

Wars decrease as technology advance for two reasons:

1: Some wars are caused by lack of resources such as land, energy, or food - advancement in technology could solve all of this, removing reasons for war.

2: Some wars are caused by misunderstanding or indoctrination in forms of out group hostility, a more technical society would increase the education and awareness and reasonability of the individual that they would recognize War doesnt solve problems the way thats most productive.

3: Advanced technology allows for more likelihood of MAD, it would be very extremely counter productive for a country to fight a war it knows it wont come out unscathed.

4: even wars did break out, it would be very unlikely for countries to use weapons of mass destruction fearing number 3. Advanced technology allows for precision war with much less civilian casualties.

I agree: There should be a less likelihood of war with the advancement of technology, but is it the case today?

Are we fighting less today, as a whole, than we were 300 years ago? 500 years?

Your theory is yet to be observed, I'm afraid.

t.

[Giaour]

Science is evil.

I'm sure it is, considering it only saved a few million if not billions of people from starvation and disease.

Science didn't save millions, God did.

[Apoptosis]

Science is evil.

I'm sure it is, considering it only saved a few million if not billions of people from starvation and disease.

Science didn't save millions, God did.

Next time you need a surgery, you can goto the church and pray instead of going to a doctor, why not cut the middleman and go directly to the source? LOL

[Apoptosis]

That't not true, as technology advances there should be less likelyhood of war. Many of you doesn't think so, but consider if you were living in the middle ages, how often do you think your homes will be ravaged by war?

Wars decrease as technology advance for two reasons:

1: Some wars are caused by lack of resources such as land, energy, or food - advancement in technology could solve all of this, removing reasons for war.

2: Some wars are caused by misunderstanding or indoctrination in forms of out group hostility, a more technical society would increase the education and awareness and reasonability of the individual that they would recognize War doesnt solve problems the way thats most productive.

3: Advanced technology allows for more likelihood of MAD, it would be very extremely counter productive for a country to fight a war it knows it wont come out unscathed.

4: even wars did break out, it would be very unlikely for countries to use weapons of mass destruction fearing number 3. Advanced technology allows for precision war with much less civilian casualties.

I agree: There should be a less likelihood of war with the advancement of technology, but is it the case today?

Are we fighting less today, as a whole, than we were 300 years ago? 500 years?

Your theory is yet to be observed, I'm afraid.

t.

My Theory is observed if you just look.

300 years ago, English, French, Spanish, Portuguese are all involved in some kind of war for territory and colonies, the entire african continent was in constant warfare between tribes. Japan Shoguns are killing eachother for power, Chinese emperial government changes some times through violence through each dynasty.

Now we have some infighting among africans in africa in isolated areas, most of africa is not affected, a war in the middle east, but the majority of europe is at peace.

So yes, there are less wars and it cannot be because of religion because the states in europe are becomming more and more secular.

[Giaour]

I do both, thank you very much.

Where do you think the knowledge came from?

The knowledge came from God.

Where did the plants to make the medicine come from?

It came from God.

Where did the ore to make the machinery come from?

It came from God.

Where did the compassion to try and extend life and minimize suffering come from?

The need to help others comes from God.

[ted]

So yes, there are less wars and it cannot be because of religion because the states in europe are becomming more and more secular.

I never said anything about religion.

Are there "less wars" due to advancements in technology? I don't know, really. Depends on how you look at it.

Certainly, the world is not in a general state of war today, but little battles and skirmishes go on none the less, making it seem like we are heading for something big.

Islamic extremism seems to be the biggest threat today to world peace. People also say the same about the US, too, I guess.

I do think the advent of nuclear weapons causes those that hold them to think twice about using them, but they haven't really done much to curb other forms of warfare.

My point was simply that advancements in technology hasn't done much to curb mankind's desire for war much. It made war a bit more lethal and exact in targeting, but it hasn't lessened our urge to blow the other guy out of the water, over all.

I would figure that, as advanced as many of the largest nations are today, we would have figured out how to live together without killing each other by now. Although many of the largest and more advanced nations have not really warred against each other since the '40's, we just lived through something that could have been disastrous (the Cold War). For now, there is a relative peace among the larger nations, but will we grow to leave war behind due to technology? To me, it looks like we are heading in the opposite direction- just as the Bible says.

Now, you can nail me for bringing religion into the discussion.

t.

[Apoptosis]

So yes, there are less wars and it cannot be because of religion because the states in europe are becomming more and more secular.

I never said anything about religion.

Are there "less wars" due to advancements in technology? I don't know, really. Depends on how you look at it.

Certainly, the world is not in a general state of war today, but little battles and skirmishes go on none the less, making it seem like we are heading for something big.

Islamic extremism seems to be the biggest threat today to world peace. People also say the same about the US, too, I guess.

I do think the advent of nuclear weapons causes those that hold them to think twice about using them, but they haven't really done much to curb other forms of warfare.

My point was simply that advancements in technology hasn't done much to curb mankind's desire for war much. It made war a bit more lethal and exact in targeting, but it hasn't lessened our urge to blow the other guy out of the water, over all.

I would figure that, as advanced as many of the largest nations are today, we would have figured out how to live together without killing each other by now. Although many of the largest and more advanced nations have not really warred against each other since the '40's, we just lived through something that could have been disastrous (the Cold War). For now, there is a relative peace among the larger nations, but will we grow to leave war behind due to technology? To me, it looks like we are heading in the opposite direction- just as the Bible says.

Now, you can nail me for bringing religion into the discussion.

t.

I meant to say scientific, wrong word to use in the context I guess.

We are technologically "advanced", but not rationally advanced. Most conflicts occur because we will not let go of some deeply held belief (either political or religious) that we are right and the other side is wrong. This is why a lot of scientists are against religion because it claims to know absolute truth, it opens doors for abuse of that power. A dialogue can only occur between nations when either side give in a little and play with the possibility that its view of the world MAY be wrong or at least incomplete, and only with dialogue (actually completely wiping out your enemies does the same, but thats counter productive and immoral in most cases) can peace be achieved.

Most scientist and atheists hates war, and will wish it away if they could, war occurs not because of science, but because the unevent distrubution of science and resources in the world instigated by people/political/religious leaders who are NOT rational, and who are NOT scientific in their assessment/jugement of situations.

If we continue to become a more rational society, I think we will abandon war and become more or less a global entity instead of discrete nations. We will identify ourself as Humans of the Earth instead of Americans of the USA. The removal of ingroups would decrease out group hostility, since there would be no out group.

The only conflict i can see occuring in the future would the result of an Energy crisis... But that could be solved with Science, and in fact it could ONLY be solved with science.

PS.

Giaour... The ability to doubt God is also from God, since he gave us the rationality to Doubt.