Conservative Religious Right crosses the line in Florida.

[The Postman]

And what? The other side is that a bored deity made us out of dust and dirt? Come on, mythology doesn't equal science.

[Kosmo]

I always tought that sciense was about logic and laws, like mathematics and laws of physics, anything related (even remotely) to religion or superstition has nothing to do with sciense or truth what so ever. That is why we have two separate things, and not just one thing that is truth, religion to cover the supersitious things like soul and all that shit, and sciense to cover the things we can actually study and reason as truth.

This all comes down to logic, if you can touch something or someone can present you with anough facts about it, you'd rather believe on that (especially if it is very recent study) than some mumbo jumbo religion that has vague scriptures about some peoples OPINIONS and their side of the story.

[Pericolos0]

kosmo you can actually use (false or misinterpreted) facts and logic combined with the bible to make creationism sound very plausible, but the problem here is you get a theory that is not falsifiable. Every true scientific theory is falsifiable if there is enough evidence against it. The point is no theory can reach 100% certanity, not even evolution (eventhough it's gotten really close and has withstood falsification for over a century), and that's why alot of people dismiss it as 'just another theory' and hold as much value in other non-scientific theories like creationism.

If you want to fight creationism, then schools have to teach correct ways of reasoning and critical thinking. If people do not know the proper workings of science then creationism will never go away.

[Kosmo]

I was never taught proper resoning and critical thinking and judging of "facts" and still I manage to do that properly, and I think that it is mainly due to the fact that I do not accept any religion, since I think every religion is against human rights.

But the big difference between scientific "fact" and religious mumbo jumbo is that religious mumbo jumbo is 2000 years old and still thought as correct as it was back then, as of various scientific "facts" have habit of overruling eachother when a newer point of view or study comes around (and here we learn how these facts were actually incorrect from the beginning or the time being), those religious assumptions and opinions have not updated them since they were written. Sure there are different views in different teachings of the same religion, but they remain still different points of view of the same thing which was wrong from the beginning, it doesn't matter how many different views you get from a half truth, it still remains half truth.

That is the most defining difference between a fact which presents itself as sciense and an opinion which is the religion. Sure there are almost religions amongst sciense too, like Albert Einsteins "theory of relativity" which seems to many still being a definining theory even though it has since been ruled "obsolete" by various scientific communities.

[Pericolos0]

Creationism is going far beyond 2000 year old mumbo jumbo, theres many gradations in it, from fundamentalist 8000 year old universe adam and eve, to stuff lik egap theory, intelligent design etc. If you do not know much about evolution theory (say the basics of genetic mutations and natural selection), and are a religious person (which is like 98% of the world), then intelligent design may sound very realistic.

Stuff like Irreducible complexity ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity ) is actually pretty well thought out, but still no real science.

The only thing that is needed for this theory to be correct is an existing deity, which cannot be proven ofcourse. There are still alot of thing we do not know and that is what ID attacks.

Just read up on some creationist websites and you'll quickly find out their defense is pretty strong. But ofcourse they feed on the ignorant

Also Albert Einsteins theory of relativity is still true in its frame of reference. This means the theory is useless on a molecular level, you'll only start noticing spacetime distortion effects etc on magnitudes of millions of miles. But its obsolete in quantum physics. String theory is trying to combine these two big theories into one big theory of everything. But string theory cannot be proven (yet) because we cannot detect the 'strings' it assumes to exist. It's basically a religion if you accept it as truth.

[RD]

Sure there are different views in different teachings of the same religion, but they remain still different points of view of the same thing which was wrong from the beginning, it doesn't matter how many different views you get from a half truth, it still remains half truth.

What was wrong from the beginning in the bible, or the Koran for example?

That is the most defining difference between a fact which presents itself as sciense and an opinion which is the religion. Sure there are almost religions amongst sciense too, like Albert Einsteins "theory of relativity" which seems to many still being a definining theory even though it has since been ruled "obsolete" by various scientific communities.

Science doesnt answer all questions. Like how did evrything begin.

[GrayFox]

Science doesnt answer all questions. Like how did evrything begin.

So people create an imaginary friend (god) which they use to explain everything they don't understand.

[RD]

Some ppl create an (imaginary) god, and others are mindless zombies that never marvel at the mystery. Their deepest thought "it cant be god" blasphemizes the science and logic they worship and satisfies all curiosity their mindless atoms allow them to feel

[GrayFox]

Some ppl create an (imaginary) god, and others are mindless zombies that never marvel at the mystery. Their deepest thought "it cant be god" blasphemizes the science and logic they worship and satisfies all curiosity their mindless atoms allow them to feel

And to say "it has to be God" is naive. Why can't people just settle for "we can't understand that yet"?

[Pericolos0]

"I don't know" is never a satisfying answer but it's better for me than something made up. I guess it's in people's nature to absolutely need an answer on things. People are stupid

[RD]

And to say "it has to be God" is naive. Why can't people just settle for "we can't understand that yet"?

We would still believe the earth was flat and throbbing around the moon if we were like that. How do u know we cant understand it yet? It only takes one genius to reveal the marvel

[GrayFox]

"I don't know" is never a satisfying answer but it's better for me than something made up. I guess it's in people's nature to absolutely need an answer on things. People are stupid

Very true.

And to say "it has to be God" is naive. Why can't people just settle for "we can't understand that yet"?

We would still believe the earth was flat and throbbing around the moon if we were like that. How do u know we cant understand it yet? It only takes one genius to reveal the marvel

Admitting that we don't understand something doesn't mean we will eventually.

[JynxDaddy]

I agree with Grayfox~

God is just a cop out, it leads to questions no one can answer as a way of ending an arguement.

If God made everything, who made God?

Whats the difference between saying "I don't know, lets not try to find out" and "God made it dummy"

[Kosmo]

Let me point you a different view, you all look your relationship with religion through christianity and it's many forms (I believe there are some other religions here too), but as a person who has had the time for no apparent reason to study religions not defined religions by the way we define them, e.g. Buddhism (Zen buddhism to be precise), Taoism, Confucianism all big philosophies in Japan, they are not religions in the way christianity is, they serve the people, not the religion.

You may be confused why I said that they serve the people, well example, usually in Japan people study different religions, not neccessary settling for one thing, but drawing strenght from all of them, sometimes Japanese stufy Confucianism when young, then Taoism when matured and Zen Buddhism when they are old, this kind of religion hopping is frowned here in western society, besides our religions are the absolute truth to those who believe in them, but in most asian countries, they are teachings, they use them to find answers, not to tell them answers.

So, how we see the universe is rather different from them, due to the religions and cultural differences, we don't know how all began, we try sciences to explain it, and when it fails, we go to the shortest possible route i.e. "god created it", when you ask someone who studies Zen Buddhism his answer might be "does it really matter? it is here for a purpose, just like we all are" and so on, while this Buddshists answer didn't give us absolutely anything, you have to understand that neither did the "god created everything" mumbo jumbo, the difference between these two are, the christian way is absolute, there is no room left for being wrong, but Buddhists realize the fact that at somepoint people have knowedge so vast that we can answer questions like that.

So, that is why I do not believe in any religion but have decided to remain philosophical human being, looking for answers, not giving them.

[RD]

Whats the difference between saying "I don't know, lets not try to find out" and "God made it dummy"

Science doesnt exclude God tho. If u believe God cant have made it, then u dont believe in science. Right now as far as we know evrything is possible, including God and its just as 'dumb' to believe it cant be him as believing it can only be him.

I suggest, unbelievably enough, to listen to Kosmo here

If God made everything, who made God?

Well ofcourse, nobody knows