Science and religion are near opposites. Why you ask? Because of the way they work. In science, Evidence is found, and is followed by a theory. In Religion, An idea was stated, followed by the creation of evidence to prove the theory. So in a way, religion is only true because it was made true.
On another note, I would like to challenge the bible in a few ways. Firstly, When Noah created his ark and the world flooded, he saved 2 of each animals. However, genes show that reproduction from 2 animals cannot create for more than several generations, due to the fact that it would cause genetic mishaps. This would apply to Adam and Eve as well. And what about plants? Animals need to eat something. Some may say that Instead of the world being flooded, only HIS world was flooded, meaning as far as he could see. But if that is the case, how did he get 2 of ALL the animals?
He never said that they were not included...excluding maybe the polar bears, but I think you misunderstand. If only part of the world is flooded and he gets 2 of each animal in that area, then others outside of that area could have survived anyways because they were not effected by the flood. Going by this theory, this could also mean that other dogs, cats, etc. may have existed to have them breed together also possibly answering the whole genetic mishap thing you were talking about. Does this make any sense to you?
That makes so much sense, and I can't believe I said what I said this morning. Sometimes I'm stupid in the morning XD
I think that there was a massive flooding event a few thousand years ago . . . but it wasn't nearly as big as the Bible says it is.
Scientists have found evidence that the Dead Sea by Israel was once a valley inhabited by people, and one day, the valley flooded in and destroyed the civilization there. it's quite possible that people heard of the flooding and either also heard of a survivor or made up a survivor named Noah. It's physically impossible to flood the entire world, even just the inhabited areas.
Most of this has already been discussed in the topic 'Why don't you believe in god'?
But anyways, away from that: I don't think the story of the arc is true. If it is only counting the 'known' world, making it possible for a *decently* sized ark with very few animals on it, what's the significance of the story? How would you then distinguish in between 'gods doing' and a normal flood/monsoon?
[quoteThat's the beauty of science! You do not need faith in it, because faith is replaced by proof and evidence. [/quote]
Ok. Take this example. This guy has totaly overidealized science by saying that it doesn't involve any faith whatsoever. But, like that's just wrong. Science is all about faith, it's just all make believe and spin when you think about it.
Look at that guy in a wheelchair, supposebly the greatest physicist in the world. Well, he was wrong. Does anyone remember? All his stuff on the black holes was wrong. So he should be the worst and a laughingstock. So why do they think he was the best. Because they were told he was the best and they still believe it. That's one exampel of faith in scientists.
If it is only counting the 'known' world, making it possible for a *decently* sized ark with very few animals on it, what's the significance of the story? How would you then distinguish in between 'gods doing' and a normal flood/monsoon?
The story was about the human race outside of a select family being wiped out. If it flooded the known world that would be where a majority of the human race exists wouldn't it? I would consider that significant.
Science is all about faith, it's just all make believe and spin when you think about it.
Your perception of science is really screwed up. Faith is confident belief in something with no support at all - everything in science has some sort of evidence, solid or not.
Look at that guy in a wheelchair, supposebly the greatest physicist in the world. Well, he was wrong. Does anyone remember? All his stuff on the black holes was wrong. So he should be the worst and a laughingstock. So why do they think he was the best. Because they were told he was the best and they still believe it. That's one exampel of faith in scientists.
Wrong again.
He wasn't wrong about black holes. All that he was definitely wrong about was his first theory on the Information Paradox. His second one pretty much set the ground for M-theory, one of the most respected and believed physics theories . . . ever. They consider him the best because he's an absolute genius, not because he was right or wrong.
Ok. Take this example. This guy has totaly overidealized science by saying that it doesn't involve any faith whatsoever. But, like that's just wrong. Science is all about faith, it's just all make believe and spin when you think about it.
No it is not. You are pulling this out of your ass. Science uses experiments to prove what it believes. You have just stated that Biology, Physics and Chemistry are all faith based. Therefore you have just stated the earth does not revolve around the earth, gravity does not exist and that there is no such thing as hydrogen and oxygen forming together to create water.
There, proven wrong. You have just made your hole a massive crater and made yourself look like a twit. I clap at your ignorance.
That would be a misinterpretation on the nature of faith. Why do scientists have disagreement on different theories explaining the nature of physics, or chemistry, or biochemical processes? We have empirical evidence, but we put faith that it is explained by a certain conclusion.
That would be a misinterpretation on the nature of faith. Why do scientists have disagreement on different theories explaining the nature of physics, or chemistry, or biochemical processes? We have empirical evidence, but we put faith that it is explained by a certain conclusion.
I would call it opinion rather than faith, since faith has to do with believing in something without evidence/proof while one's opinion on a theory is more based on drawing different conclusions from the same data.
Therefore you have just stated the earth does not revolve around the earth, gravity does not exist and that there is no such thing as hydrogen and oxygen forming together to create water.
Nope. Looks fine to me. I'm saying that she is saying that all those scientific facts are faith based. Which they are not.
