Total Posts:32|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Science and Religion are not at odds.

drpiek
Posts: 589
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2015 1:48:18 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I read all these attempts to juxtapose scientific findings and religion as if they are at odds. I think the scientific minded that think science could ever disprove god, and the religious who cringe at scientific findings as if they are against god are just silly.

Evolution is a fact and it does not disprove god, it just shows us a little more about how god does things. The same goes for the big bang, old universe, ect. Religion tries to understand the why behind god and has made many mistakes in the understanding of the how. Science disregards the why question and focuses on how god does it.

It is the religious literalists who get all upset when science shows their books written thousands of years ago, got something wrong. In the beginning there was the word, and the word was god, and the word went BANG billions of years ago. Maybe the jews are right and God created Adam and Eve, then when cain was cast out, maybe he found the people who evolved, and took one as a wife. The fact is we do not know it all, the scientific theories and religious theories are just that. Some are more supported than others, but they both point to a greater power that has guided all of this.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,623
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2015 2:18:07 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/10/2015 1:48:18 PM, drpiek wrote:
I read all these attempts to juxtapose scientific findings and religion as if they are at odds. I think the scientific minded that think science could ever disprove god, and the religious who cringe at scientific findings as if they are against god are just silly.

Evolution is a fact and it does not disprove god, it just shows us a little more about how god does things. The same goes for the big bang, old universe, ect. Religion tries to understand the why behind god and has made many mistakes in the understanding of the how. Science disregards the why question and focuses on how god does it.

It is the religious literalists who get all upset when science shows their books written thousands of years ago, got something wrong. In the beginning there was the word, and the word was god, and the word went BANG billions of years ago. Maybe the jews are right and God created Adam and Eve, then when cain was cast out, maybe he found the people who evolved, and took one as a wife. The fact is we do not know it all, the scientific theories and religious theories are just that. Some are more supported than others, but they both point to a greater power that has guided all of this.

Sorry, but science does not demonstrate in any way "a greater power that has guided all of this", you are simply referring to philosophical mumbo jumbo.

And of course, the fact that science has never found any guidance in nature has no bearing at all on religious creation stories. In fact, science would make no mention of any guidance if it weren't brought up by theists, who constantly harp on the fallacy that science is trying to disprove God or that science and religion are not at odds.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
drpiek
Posts: 589
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2015 6:55:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/10/2015 2:18:07 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 2/10/2015 1:48:18 PM, drpiek wrote:
I read all these attempts to juxtapose scientific findings and religion as if they are at odds. I think the scientific minded that think science could ever disprove god, and the religious who cringe at scientific findings as if they are against god are just silly.

Evolution is a fact and it does not disprove god, it just shows us a little more about how god does things. The same goes for the big bang, old universe, ect. Religion tries to understand the why behind god and has made many mistakes in the understanding of the how. Science disregards the why question and focuses on how god does it.

It is the religious literalists who get all upset when science shows their books written thousands of years ago, got something wrong. In the beginning there was the word, and the word was god, and the word went BANG billions of years ago. Maybe the jews are right and God created Adam and Eve, then when cain was cast out, maybe he found the people who evolved, and took one as a wife. The fact is we do not know it all, the scientific theories and religious theories are just that. Some are more supported than others, but they both point to a greater power that has guided all of this.

Sorry, but science does not demonstrate in any way "a greater power that has guided all of this", you are simply referring to philosophical mumbo jumbo.

And of course, the fact that science has never found any guidance in nature has no bearing at all on religious creation stories. In fact, science would make no mention of any guidance if it weren't brought up by theists, who constantly harp on the fallacy that science is trying to disprove God or that science and religion are not at odds.

To be clear it is God and Science that are not at Odds. Religion is man made and fallible like science.
bulproof
Posts: 25,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2015 7:13:01 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/10/2015 6:55:54 PM, drpiek wrote:
At 2/10/2015 2:18:07 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 2/10/2015 1:48:18 PM, drpiek wrote:
I read all these attempts to juxtapose scientific findings and religion as if they are at odds. I think the scientific minded that think science could ever disprove god, and the religious who cringe at scientific findings as if they are against god are just silly.

Evolution is a fact and it does not disprove god, it just shows us a little more about how god does things. The same goes for the big bang, old universe, ect. Religion tries to understand the why behind god and has made many mistakes in the understanding of the how. Science disregards the why question and focuses on how god does it.

It is the religious literalists who get all upset when science shows their books written thousands of years ago, got something wrong. In the beginning there was the word, and the word was god, and the word went BANG billions of years ago. Maybe the jews are right and God created Adam and Eve, then when cain was cast out, maybe he found the people who evolved, and took one as a wife. The fact is we do not know it all, the scientific theories and religious theories are just that. Some are more supported than others, but they both point to a greater power that has guided all of this.

Sorry, but science does not demonstrate in any way "a greater power that has guided all of this", you are simply referring to philosophical mumbo jumbo.

And of course, the fact that science has never found any guidance in nature has no bearing at all on religious creation stories. In fact, science would make no mention of any guidance if it weren't brought up by theists, who constantly harp on the fallacy that science is trying to disprove God or that science and religion are not at odds.


To be clear it is God and Science that are not at Odds. Religion is man made and fallible like science.
So are gods.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Garbanza
Posts: 1,997
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2015 7:21:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I agree. It's annoying when people set science against religion. It turns science into a religion which it isn't.
bulproof
Posts: 25,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2015 7:23:29 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/10/2015 7:21:24 PM, Garbanza wrote:
I agree. It's annoying when people set science against religion. It turns science into a religion which it isn't.

Science couldn't care less about religion.
It's religion that is deathly afraid of science.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Garbanza
Posts: 1,997
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2015 7:24:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/10/2015 7:23:29 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 2/10/2015 7:21:24 PM, Garbanza wrote:
I agree. It's annoying when people set science against religion. It turns science into a religion which it isn't.

Science couldn't care less about religion.
It's religion that is deathly afraid of science.

You know science isn't a person, right? It's not sitting on a cloud up there indifferent to religion?
dee-em
Posts: 6,474
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2015 7:27:17 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/10/2015 1:48:18 PM, drpiek wrote:
I read all these attempts to juxtapose scientific findings and religion as if they are at odds. I think the scientific minded that think science could ever disprove god, and the religious who cringe at scientific findings as if they are against god are just silly.

Evolution is a fact and it does not disprove god, it just shows us a little more about how god does things. The same goes for the big bang, old universe, ect. Religion tries to understand the why behind god and has made many mistakes in the understanding of the how. Science disregards the why question and focuses on how god does it.

If the religious got the "how" wrong, what makes you think they are any more credible with the "why"?

It is the religious literalists who get all upset when science shows their books written thousands of years ago, got something wrong. In the beginning there was the word, and the word was god, and the word went BANG billions of years ago. Maybe the jews are right and God created Adam and Eve, then when cain was cast out, maybe he found the people who evolved, and took one as a wife.

Lol. This is comedy gold.

The fact is we do not know it all, the scientific theories and religious theories are just that.

More comedy gold. You think scientific theories and religious theories are on an equal footing?

Some are more supported than others, but they both point to a greater power that has guided all of this.

Sure. If you say so. The trouble is, that is all you have. An opinion backed by nothing other than incredulity.
bulproof
Posts: 25,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2015 7:40:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/10/2015 7:24:49 PM, Garbanza wrote:
At 2/10/2015 7:23:29 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 2/10/2015 7:21:24 PM, Garbanza wrote:
I agree. It's annoying when people set science against religion. It turns science into a religion which it isn't.

Science couldn't care less about religion.
It's religion that is deathly afraid of science.

You know science isn't a person, right? It's not sitting on a cloud up there indifferent to religion?

Science is indifferent to religion. You would need an understanding of the word science if you were to understand that though.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Garbanza
Posts: 1,997
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2015 7:41:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/10/2015 7:40:32 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 2/10/2015 7:24:49 PM, Garbanza wrote:
At 2/10/2015 7:23:29 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 2/10/2015 7:21:24 PM, Garbanza wrote:
I agree. It's annoying when people set science against religion. It turns science into a religion which it isn't.

Science couldn't care less about religion.
It's religion that is deathly afraid of science.

You know science isn't a person, right? It's not sitting on a cloud up there indifferent to religion?

Science is indifferent to religion. You would need an understanding of the word science if you were to understand that though.

Maybe you could explain it to me. :)
bulproof
Posts: 25,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2015 7:44:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/10/2015 7:41:49 PM, Garbanza wrote:
At 2/10/2015 7:40:32 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 2/10/2015 7:24:49 PM, Garbanza wrote:
At 2/10/2015 7:23:29 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 2/10/2015 7:21:24 PM, Garbanza wrote:
I agree. It's annoying when people set science against religion. It turns science into a religion which it isn't.

Science couldn't care less about religion.
It's religion that is deathly afraid of science.

You know science isn't a person, right? It's not sitting on a cloud up there indifferent to religion?

Science is indifferent to religion. You would need an understanding of the word science if you were to understand that though.

Maybe you could explain it to me. :)

Not my job.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Garbanza
Posts: 1,997
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2015 7:49:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/10/2015 7:44:59 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 2/10/2015 7:41:49 PM, Garbanza wrote:
At 2/10/2015 7:40:32 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 2/10/2015 7:24:49 PM, Garbanza wrote:
At 2/10/2015 7:23:29 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 2/10/2015 7:21:24 PM, Garbanza wrote:
I agree. It's annoying when people set science against religion. It turns science into a religion which it isn't.

Science couldn't care less about religion.
It's religion that is deathly afraid of science.

You know science isn't a person, right? It's not sitting on a cloud up there indifferent to religion?

Science is indifferent to religion. You would need an understanding of the word science if you were to understand that though.

Maybe you could explain it to me. :)

Not my job.

You're speaking from a position of faith then, I think. You believe that an understanding of the word science would lead to the understanding that science is indifferent to religion, but you don't know for sure because you can't explain the word science. That's okay. I respect faith.
bulproof
Posts: 25,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2015 7:55:21 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/10/2015 7:49:10 PM, Garbanza wrote:
At 2/10/2015 7:44:59 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 2/10/2015 7:41:49 PM, Garbanza wrote:
At 2/10/2015 7:40:32 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 2/10/2015 7:24:49 PM, Garbanza wrote:
At 2/10/2015 7:23:29 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 2/10/2015 7:21:24 PM, Garbanza wrote:
I agree. It's annoying when people set science against religion. It turns science into a religion which it isn't.

Science couldn't care less about religion.
It's religion that is deathly afraid of science.

You know science isn't a person, right? It's not sitting on a cloud up there indifferent to religion?

Science is indifferent to religion. You would need an understanding of the word science if you were to understand that though.

Maybe you could explain it to me. :)

Not my job.

You're speaking from a position of faith then, I think. You believe that an understanding of the word science would lead to the understanding that science is indifferent to religion, but you don't know for sure because you can't explain the word science. That's okay. I respect faith.

You obviously need teaching though. Good luck.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
drpiek
Posts: 589
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2015 8:50:20 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/10/2015 7:27:17 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 2/10/2015 1:48:18 PM, drpiek wrote:
I read all these attempts to juxtapose scientific findings and religion as if they are at odds. I think the scientific minded that think science could ever disprove god, and the religious who cringe at scientific findings as if they are against god are just silly.

Evolution is a fact and it does not disprove god, it just shows us a little more about how god does things. The same goes for the big bang, old universe, ect. Religion tries to understand the why behind god and has made many mistakes in the understanding of the how. Science disregards the why question and focuses on how god does it.

If the religious got the "how" wrong, what makes you think they are any more credible with the "why"?

It is the religious literalists who get all upset when science shows their books written thousands of years ago, got something wrong. In the beginning there was the word, and the word was god, and the word went BANG billions of years ago. Maybe the jews are right and God created Adam and Eve, then when cain was cast out, maybe he found the people who evolved, and took one as a wife.

Lol. This is comedy gold.

The fact is we do not know it all, the scientific theories and religious theories are just that.

More comedy gold. You think scientific theories and religious theories are on an equal footing?

Some are more supported than others, but they both point to a greater power that has guided all of this.

Sure. If you say so. The trouble is, that is all you have. An opinion backed by nothing other than incredulity.

So you are saying that my opinion is backed by disbelief? Disbelief in what? I believe in the scientific method, and I believe in God. It is you that is incredulous.
Gentorev
Posts: 2,926
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2015 9:09:27 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/10/2015 1:48:18 PM, drpiek wrote:
I read all these attempts to juxtapose scientific findings and religion as if they are at odds. I think the scientific minded that think science could ever disprove god, and the religious who cringe at scientific findings as if they are against god are just silly.

Evolution is a fact and it does not disprove god, it just shows us a little more about how god does things. The same goes for the big bang, old universe, ect. Religion tries to understand the why behind god and has made many mistakes in the understanding of the how. Science disregards the why question and focuses on how god does it.

It is the religious literalists who get all upset when science shows their books written thousands of years ago, got something wrong. In the beginning there was the word, and the word was god, and the word went BANG billions of years ago. Maybe the jews are right and God created Adam and Eve, then when cain was cast out, maybe he found the people who evolved, and took one as a wife. The fact is we do not know it all, the scientific theories and religious theories are just that. Some are more supported than others, but they both point to a greater power that has guided all of this.

The root to the word "BRAHMAN" originally meant "SPEECH", much the same as the "LOGOS" is said to mean "WORD," but both are in fact, the gathered genetic information of every universal body throughout all eternity. Both Brahman and Logos, should be seen as the essential divine reality of the universe the eternal spirit from which all being originates, and to which all must return.

You are body, soul and spirit. Your body is made up from the universal elements, and it is activated by the universal soul, which is the animating principle that pervades the entire universal body, activating everything within the universe, from the wave particles to the subatomic particles that make up the atoms which are the building blocks of the molecules from which the universal body is created. It is to the universal soul=LIFE-FORCE that all information = SPIRIT is gathered.

"YOU" the mind, are spirit. The body in which you, [The mind] are developing as the supreme head and controller of that body, is made up of the universal elements, which is activated by the soul [Animating life force] to which all the spirit [gathered information] of all your ancestors, human and prehuman, has been gathered in the evolution of whatever was in the beginning to become who you are, and that parental spirit dwells behind the veil to the inner most sanctuary of its earthly tabernacle=tent, which is your body.

If that body in which your parental spirit dwells, were born without the sense of sight, hearing, smell, taste, touch, etc, then no information whatsoever could be taken into the brain, and "YOU" who are spirit [Gathered information] could never have begun to develop and the living body, in which the parental spirit dwells, would soon die, never having developed a personality = "CONTROLLING GODHEAD" to that body.

Then of the Thee in Me who works behind
The veil, I lifted up my hands to find
A lamp amid the Darkness; and I heard,
As from Without__ "The Me within Thee is blind.".... By Omar Khayyam.

When the body in which you [the mind] are being formed, dies, [This is the first death] and your body: "skin, flesh, muscle, blood, bone, brain matter etc, etc," has returned to the universal elements from which it was created, all that remains, is a shadow or rather, a facsimile of YOU = the mind=spirit, that has been imprinted into the universal life force=soul, from which it will be resurrected in the next cycle of universal activity. Unless of course, the information=spirit that is "YOU" is divided from the universal life-force, which is the second death. For the spirit=information that is you, can be divided from the universal soul----------"For the word of God is alive and active, sharper than any two edged sword. It cuts all the way through to the division of the soul and spirit."
'
The term, "THE WORD OF GOD," pertains to the sense that is identical to the term "LOGOS" or the mold. The mold by which the whole sense of a thing is given. In other words, the very plan from the outset. In Sanskrit the similar meaning is given in the use of the word 'vach.' Vach means word. But in Sanskrit teachings of the Sanatana Dharma, vach has many levels. Including where the word is first considered as being in the mind as a thought, not as the spoken word or speech.

We humans, may express in our spoken words, all the information that has been gathered through the senses of our bodies in the creation of the invisible minds=spirits that are "WE". Our word is the expression of "Who we are." Your words are the spirit that is "YOU" the mind.

But the "LOGOS=WORD" and BRAHMAN=SPEECH" who are the gathered information=spirit of the aeons, express the information that has been gathered to the universal soul as another universal body, which is in the image and likeness to the previous universe, [The Resurrection] in which the eternal Spirit=mind has and can continue to evolve.

In the Pseudigraphia of the Old Testament, The Lord God says to Adam, "Dust you are and to dust you must return, but when the resurrection comes around again, [The next cycle of universal activity] I will raise you and all of your seed etc. This is the reality of the resurrection.

The "LOGOS=BRAHMAN," is the essential divine reality of the Universe, the eternal spirit=mind from which all being originates and to which, all must return.

The LOGOS is today as it always was, and will be into all eternity. It is the only true constant in that it is constantly evolving. Show to me a mind that has ceased to evolve, and I will show to you a mind that has ceased to exist... At the close of each period of universal activity, the Godhead or the compilation of all the minds of the Most High species to have evolved in that period, enters into Brahman or Logos, as the supreme personality of godhead (The Light Of Man=all the knowledge, wisdom and insight gathered by the body of mankind who is the most high on the ladder of evolution in the physical creation] the life or controlling personality in Brahman or Logos.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,623
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2015 9:28:12 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/10/2015 6:55:54 PM, drpiek wrote:
At 2/10/2015 2:18:07 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 2/10/2015 1:48:18 PM, drpiek wrote:
I read all these attempts to juxtapose scientific findings and religion as if they are at odds. I think the scientific minded that think science could ever disprove god, and the religious who cringe at scientific findings as if they are against god are just silly.

Evolution is a fact and it does not disprove god, it just shows us a little more about how god does things. The same goes for the big bang, old universe, ect. Religion tries to understand the why behind god and has made many mistakes in the understanding of the how. Science disregards the why question and focuses on how god does it.

It is the religious literalists who get all upset when science shows their books written thousands of years ago, got something wrong. In the beginning there was the word, and the word was god, and the word went BANG billions of years ago. Maybe the jews are right and God created Adam and Eve, then when cain was cast out, maybe he found the people who evolved, and took one as a wife. The fact is we do not know it all, the scientific theories and religious theories are just that. Some are more supported than others, but they both point to a greater power that has guided all of this.

Sorry, but science does not demonstrate in any way "a greater power that has guided all of this", you are simply referring to philosophical mumbo jumbo.

And of course, the fact that science has never found any guidance in nature has no bearing at all on religious creation stories. In fact, science would make no mention of any guidance if it weren't brought up by theists, who constantly harp on the fallacy that science is trying to disprove God or that science and religion are not at odds.


To be clear it is God and Science that are not at Odds. Religion is man made and fallible like science.

It's all the same crapola, dude, childish myths and superstitions.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
drpiek
Posts: 589
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2015 9:31:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/10/2015 9:28:12 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 2/10/2015 6:55:54 PM, drpiek wrote:
At 2/10/2015 2:18:07 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 2/10/2015 1:48:18 PM, drpiek wrote:
I read all these attempts to juxtapose scientific findings and religion as if they are at odds. I think the scientific minded that think science could ever disprove god, and the religious who cringe at scientific findings as if they are against god are just silly.

Evolution is a fact and it does not disprove god, it just shows us a little more about how god does things. The same goes for the big bang, old universe, ect. Religion tries to understand the why behind god and has made many mistakes in the understanding of the how. Science disregards the why question and focuses on how god does it.

It is the religious literalists who get all upset when science shows their books written thousands of years ago, got something wrong. In the beginning there was the word, and the word was god, and the word went BANG billions of years ago. Maybe the jews are right and God created Adam and Eve, then when cain was cast out, maybe he found the people who evolved, and took one as a wife. The fact is we do not know it all, the scientific theories and religious theories are just that. Some are more supported than others, but they both point to a greater power that has guided all of this.

Sorry, but science does not demonstrate in any way "a greater power that has guided all of this", you are simply referring to philosophical mumbo jumbo.

And of course, the fact that science has never found any guidance in nature has no bearing at all on religious creation stories. In fact, science would make no mention of any guidance if it weren't brought up by theists, who constantly harp on the fallacy that science is trying to disprove God or that science and religion are not at odds.


To be clear it is God and Science that are not at Odds. Religion is man made and fallible like science.

It's all the same crapola, dude, childish myths and superstitions.

Ok but you calling it crap, and science does not prove anything about God wrong. I am not christian or any other religion, I was an agnostic for a very long time. Now i have no doubt god exists.
Gentorev
Posts: 2,926
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2015 9:34:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/10/2015 9:28:12 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 2/10/2015 6:55:54 PM, drpiek wrote:
At 2/10/2015 2:18:07 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 2/10/2015 1:48:18 PM, drpiek wrote:
I read all these attempts to juxtapose scientific findings and religion as if they are at odds. I think the scientific minded that think science could ever disprove god, and the religious who cringe at scientific findings as if they are against god are just silly.

Evolution is a fact and it does not disprove god, it just shows us a little more about how god does things. The same goes for the big bang, old universe, ect. Religion tries to understand the why behind god and has made many mistakes in the understanding of the how. Science disregards the why question and focuses on how god does it.

It is the religious literalists who get all upset when science shows their books written thousands of years ago, got something wrong. In the beginning there was the word, and the word was god, and the word went BANG billions of years ago. Maybe the jews are right and God created Adam and Eve, then when cain was cast out, maybe he found the people who evolved, and took one as a wife. The fact is we do not know it all, the scientific theories and religious theories are just that. Some are more supported than others, but they both point to a greater power that has guided all of this.

Sorry, but science does not demonstrate in any way "a greater power that has guided all of this", you are simply referring to philosophical mumbo jumbo.

And of course, the fact that science has never found any guidance in nature has no bearing at all on religious creation stories. In fact, science would make no mention of any guidance if it weren't brought up by theists, who constantly harp on the fallacy that science is trying to disprove God or that science and religion are not at odds.


To be clear it is God and Science that are not at Odds. Religion is man made and fallible like science.

It's all the same crapola, dude, childish myths and superstitions.

So say all pre-potty trained children who are ignorant to that which they attack.
dee-em
Posts: 6,474
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2015 1:55:09 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/10/2015 8:50:20 PM, drpiek wrote:
At 2/10/2015 7:27:17 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 2/10/2015 1:48:18 PM, drpiek wrote:
I read all these attempts to juxtapose scientific findings and religion as if they are at odds. I think the scientific minded that think science could ever disprove god, and the religious who cringe at scientific findings as if they are against god are just silly.

Evolution is a fact and it does not disprove god, it just shows us a little more about how god does things. The same goes for the big bang, old universe, ect. Religion tries to understand the why behind god and has made many mistakes in the understanding of the how. Science disregards the why question and focuses on how god does it.

If the religious got the "how" wrong, what makes you think they are any more credible with the "why"?

It is the religious literalists who get all upset when science shows their books written thousands of years ago, got something wrong. In the beginning there was the word, and the word was god, and the word went BANG billions of years ago. Maybe the jews are right and God created Adam and Eve, then when cain was cast out, maybe he found the people who evolved, and took one as a wife.

Lol. This is comedy gold.

The fact is we do not know it all, the scientific theories and religious theories are just that.

More comedy gold. You think scientific theories and religious theories are on an equal footing?

Some are more supported than others, but they both point to a greater power that has guided all of this.

Sure. If you say so. The trouble is, that is all you have. An opinion backed by nothing other than incredulity.

So you are saying that my opinion is backed by disbelief? Disbelief in what? I believe in the scientific method, and I believe in God. It is you that is incredulous.

No, you are incredulous that the universe could be entirely natural and not "point to a greater power that has guided all of this". Your incredulity is based on ignorance. Hence my comment.
dee-em
Posts: 6,474
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2015 2:03:15 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/10/2015 7:49:10 PM, Garbanza wrote:
At 2/10/2015 7:44:59 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 2/10/2015 7:41:49 PM, Garbanza wrote:
At 2/10/2015 7:40:32 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 2/10/2015 7:24:49 PM, Garbanza wrote:
At 2/10/2015 7:23:29 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 2/10/2015 7:21:24 PM, Garbanza wrote:
I agree. It's annoying when people set science against religion. It turns science into a religion which it isn't.

Science couldn't care less about religion.
It's religion that is deathly afraid of science.

You know science isn't a person, right? It's not sitting on a cloud up there indifferent to religion?

Science is indifferent to religion. You would need an understanding of the word science if you were to understand that though.

Maybe you could explain it to me. :)

Not my job.

You're speaking from a position of faith then, I think. You believe that an understanding of the word science would lead to the understanding that science is indifferent to religion, but you don't know for sure because you can't explain the word science. That's okay. I respect faith.

Science (from Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge"[1]) is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about nature and the universe. This knowledge is determined through the scientific method by experiments and observations, and may take the form of scientific facts, scientific models, or scientific theories.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

I'll leave it as a homework exercise for you as to where the supernatural fits into the above definition and why science might therefore be indifferent to religion.
ThinkFirst
Posts: 1,391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2015 2:25:08 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/10/2015 7:13:01 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 2/10/2015 6:55:54 PM, drpiek wrote:
At 2/10/2015 2:18:07 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 2/10/2015 1:48:18 PM, drpiek wrote:
I read all these attempts to juxtapose scientific findings and religion as if they are at odds. I think the scientific minded that think science could ever disprove god, and the religious who cringe at scientific findings as if they are against god are just silly.

Evolution is a fact and it does not disprove god, it just shows us a little more about how god does things. The same goes for the big bang, old universe, ect. Religion tries to understand the why behind god and has made many mistakes in the understanding of the how. Science disregards the why question and focuses on how god does it.

It is the religious literalists who get all upset when science shows their books written thousands of years ago, got something wrong. In the beginning there was the word, and the word was god, and the word went BANG billions of years ago. Maybe the jews are right and God created Adam and Eve, then when cain was cast out, maybe he found the people who evolved, and took one as a wife. The fact is we do not know it all, the scientific theories and religious theories are just that. Some are more supported than others, but they both point to a greater power that has guided all of this.

Sorry, but science does not demonstrate in any way "a greater power that has guided all of this", you are simply referring to philosophical mumbo jumbo.

And of course, the fact that science has never found any guidance in nature has no bearing at all on religious creation stories. In fact, science would make no mention of any guidance if it weren't brought up by theists, who constantly harp on the fallacy that science is trying to disprove God or that science and religion are not at odds.


To be clear it is God and Science that are not at Odds. Religion is man made and fallible like science.
So are gods.

Welcome back, bro.
"Never attribute to villainy that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
-----
"Men rarely if ever dream up a god superior to themselves. Most gods have the manners and morals of a spoiled child. "

-- Robert A Heinlein
ThinkFirst
Posts: 1,391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2015 2:31:45 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/10/2015 1:48:18 PM, drpiek wrote:
I read all these attempts to juxtapose scientific findings and religion as if they are at odds. I think the scientific minded that think science could ever disprove god, and the religious who cringe at scientific findings as if they are against god are just silly.

Evolution is a fact and it does not disprove god, it just shows us a little more about how god does things. The same goes for the big bang, old universe, ect. Religion tries to understand the why behind god and has made many mistakes in the understanding of the how. Science disregards the why question and focuses on how god does it.

It is the religious literalists who get all upset when science shows their books written thousands of years ago, got something wrong. In the beginning there was the word, and the word was god, and the word went BANG billions of years ago. Maybe the jews are right and God created Adam and Eve, then when cain was cast out, maybe he found the people who evolved, and took one as a wife. The fact is we do not know it all, the scientific theories and religious theories are just that. Some are more supported than others, but they both point to a greater power that has guided all of this.

Science and religion are, indeed, at odds. It is science and a deity that are not "at odds." Not because science is hell bent on removing god, but because religion is hell bent on bending scientific discovery to those religious superstitions of which they refuse to let go. Religion is man-made, and claims the authority of the supernatural and divine. Science is man-discovered and seeks the authority of factuality and veracity. I think the best example of this is the fact that Galileo (science) was imprisoned for the last part of his life by religion. Why? because the ego of a religious leader got bruised. His "divine" authority is not only questioned, but proven false by science. It was not any god that Galileo thumped; it was religion. It was man. It was falsehood and hubris. I have no problem with a god. I have an HUGE problem with all of his fan clubs.
"Never attribute to villainy that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
-----
"Men rarely if ever dream up a god superior to themselves. Most gods have the manners and morals of a spoiled child. "

-- Robert A Heinlein
ThinkFirst
Posts: 1,391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2015 2:32:55 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/10/2015 7:21:24 PM, Garbanza wrote:
I agree. It's annoying when people set science against religion. It turns science into a religion which it isn't.

No one sets science and religion at odds more than religion's other face.
"Never attribute to villainy that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
-----
"Men rarely if ever dream up a god superior to themselves. Most gods have the manners and morals of a spoiled child. "

-- Robert A Heinlein
Gentorev
Posts: 2,926
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2015 3:08:16 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/10/2015 8:50:20 PM, drpiek wrote:
At 2/10/2015 7:27:17 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 2/10/2015 1:48:18 PM, drpiek wrote:
I read all these attempts to juxtapose scientific findings and religion as if they are at odds. I think the scientific minded that think science could ever disprove god, and the religious who cringe at scientific findings as if they are against god are just silly.

Evolution is a fact and it does not disprove god, it just shows us a little more about how god does things. The same goes for the big bang, old universe, ect. Religion tries to understand the why behind god and has made many mistakes in the understanding of the how. Science disregards the why question and focuses on how god does it.

If the religious got the "how" wrong, what makes you think they are any more credible with the "why"?

It is the religious literalists who get all upset when science shows their books written thousands of years ago, got something wrong. In the beginning there was the word, and the word was god, and the word went BANG billions of years ago. Maybe the jews are right and God created Adam and Eve, then when cain was cast out, maybe he found the people who evolved, and took one as a wife.

Lol. This is comedy gold.

The fact is we do not know it all, the scientific theories and religious theories are just that.

More comedy gold. You think scientific theories and religious theories are on an equal footing?

Some are more supported than others, but they both point to a greater power that has guided all of this.

Sure. If you say so. The trouble is, that is all you have. An opinion backed by nothing other than incredulity.

So you are saying that my opinion is backed by disbelief? Disbelief in what? I believe in the scientific method, and I believe in God. It is you that is incredulous.

Our ancient ancestors expressed the belief that our scientists of today are just beginning to come to terms with, and that is, that following each "Big Bang" there comes the "Big Crunch," when this universe is condensed once again, into the infinitely dense, infinitely hot, infinitesimally small singularity from which it originated.

The age of our present physical universe does not allow the time for all the theories of biogenesis to have occurred. The question that must be asked, is: "How can a universe of mindless matter produce beings with intrinsic ends, self- replication capabilities, and "coded chemistry"? There is no way whatsoever that the world as it has evolved to today, did so in the short 14 billion years since the last BIG BANG.

Only when we come to the realisation that this generation of the universe, has evolved from a series of parental universal bodies that have preceded this one, will science begin to realise the time scale involved in the evolution of man from mindless matter.

According to the ancient cultures, we live in an eternal oscillating universe that expands outward and contracts back to its beginning in space time, a living universal being who is all that exists, and in who, all that is, exists. A living universal being who exists in the two states of visible matter and invisible energy.

"Universe after universe is like an interminable succession of wheels forever coming into view, forever rolling onwards, disappearing and reappearing; forever passing from being to non being, and again from non being to being. In short, the constant revolving of the wheel of life in one eternal cycle, according to fixed and immutable laws, is perhaps after all the sum and substance of the philosophy of Buddhism. And this eternal wheel has so to speak, six spokes representing six forms of existence." ---- Mon. Williams, Buddhism, pp. 229, 122.

The days and nights of Brahma are called Manvantara, or the cycle of manifestation, "The Great Day," which is a period of universal activity, that is preceded, and also followed by "Pralaya," a dark period, which to our finite minds seems as an eternity. "Manvantara," is a creative day as seen in the six days of creation in Genesis, "Pralaya," is the evening that proceeds the next creative day. The six periods of Creation and the seventh day of rest in which we now exist are referred to in the book of Genesis as the "GENERATIONS OF THE UNIVERSE."

The English word "Generation," is translated from the Hebrew "toledoth" which is used in the Old Testament in every instance as "births," or "descendants," such as "These are the generations of Adam," or "these are the generations of Abraham, and

Genesis 2: 4; These are the generations of the Universe or the heavens and earth, etc. And the "Great Day" in which the seven generations of the universe are eternally repeated, is the eternal cosmic period, or the eighth eternal day in which those who attain to perfection are allowed to enter, where they shall be surrounded by great light and they shall experience eternal peace, while those who do not attain to perfection are cast back into the refining fires of the seven physical cycles that perpetually revolve within the eighth eternal cosmic cycle.

A series of worlds following one upon the other,-- each world rising a step higher than the previous world, so that every later world brings to ripeness the seeds that were imbedded in the former, and itself then prepares the seed for the universe that will follow it.

God who is eternal and who is all that exists and in all that exists is in a constant state of evolution =growth, the godhead that evolves in each generation of the living universe, dies in the next cycle of universal activity as it evolves to be the godhead to that generation of the universal body.

The Alpha and the Omega are the one being from two different positions in time, according to our infantile concept of one directional linear time
This is the true resurrection in which all from the previous cycle of universal activity, who still have the judgmental war raging within them, are reborn again into the cycles of physical manifestation.
Gentorev
Posts: 2,926
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2015 3:26:11 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Continued from post #24:

Another universe may have preceded ours, study finds. May 14th, 2006. Courtesy Penn State University and World Science staff.

Three physicists say they have done calculations suggesting that before the birth of our universe, which is expanding, there was an earlier universe that was shrinking. The results stem from a +theory that claims the fabric of space and time is made up of minuscule, indivisible bits, much as matter is. Scientists believe our cosmos began in a sort of explosion called the Big Bang, when everything that exists---which had previously been packed into one infinitely dense point---burst outward. The universe is still expanding according to this view, because it was born expanding.

According to some proposals, the Big Bang is a repeating cycle. Universes might expand, then shrink back to a point, then expand again. Thus the "Bang" would be really more like a bounce. The idea is appealing in some ways, but scientists have found it far from easy to test. Einstein"s Theory of Relativity, a key basis for the Big Bang theory, is silent on what happened before that event.

"General relativity can be used to describe the universe back to a point at which matter becomes so dense that it"s equations don"t hold up," said Abhay Ashtekar, director of the Gravitational Physics and Geometry at Penn State University in University Park, Penn.

To go further, physicists must use tools Einstein didn"t have, he added. Ashtekar and two post-doctoral researchers developed such tools through a combination of Quantum physics- the science of subatomic particles"and general relativity, which describes the large-scale structure of space and time. They found that before the Big Bang, there was a contracting universe. Other than the fact it was shrinking, they added, it was similar to ours in terms of the geometry of its space and time, or spacetime, as cosmologists call it since Einstein found the two are interwoven.

"In place of a classical Big Bang there is in fact a quantum bounce," said Ashtekar. "We were so surprised by the finding," he added, that the team repeated the calculations for months to include different possible values of some numbers representing the current universe. But the results kept pointing to a bounce. The findings appear in the current issue of the research journal Physical Review Letters.

While the general idea of another, pre-Big Bang universe isn"t new, Ashtekar said, this is the first mathematical study that systematically establishes its existence and deduces properties of its spacetime geometry. The notion that spacetime has a geometry involves the idea that it can be curved or flat. A "flat" spacetime is one in which geometry works as we normally expect; for example, parallel lines never meet. But Einstein found that material objects deform this flatness, introducing curvature.

To arrive at their pre-existing universe finding, Ashtekar"s group used loop quantum gravity, a theory that seeks to reconcile General relativity with quantum physics. These two seemingly fundamental theories are otherwise contradictory in some ways. Loop quantum gravity, which was pioneered at Ashtekar"s institute, proposes that spacetime has a discrete "atomic" structure, as opposed to being a continuous sheet, as Einstein, along with most us, assumed. In loop quantum gravity, space is thought of as woven from one-dimensional "threads." The continuum picture remains mostly valid as an approximation. But near the Big Bang, this fabric is violently torn so that it"s discrete, or quantum, nature becomes important. One outcome of this is that gravity becomes repulsive instead of attractive, Ashetkar argued; the result is the Big Bounce.

Paul Steinhardt of Princeton University, a cosmologist who has explored some related concepts, wrote in an email that the new research "Supports, in a general way, the idea that the Big Bang need not be the beginning of space and time." The universe "may have undergone one or more bangs in its past history," he added. Steinhardt and colleagues have also proposed a bounce of sorts, but it"s different. It could turn out that the two scenarios are equivalent at some deep level, but that"s not known, he added. Steinhardt"s scenario makes use of string theory, another attempt to reconcile General Relativity with quantum physics.

Some versions of string theory portray our visible universe as a three -dimensional space embedded in an invisible space having more dimensions. Our zone, called a braneworld-the word comes from its similarity to a sort of membrane-could periodically bounce into another, parallel braneworld. Such an event might look to us, stuck in a few dimensions as we are, as a Big Bang. "I don"t know if Ashetkar"s case translates into a bounce between braneworlds like we are describing," Steinhardt wrote. But by his estimate, this cataclysm won"t take place for another roughly 300 billion years"so there is hopefully plenty of time to answer the question.

Just as the Big Bang theory has been evolving over the years and is continuing to evolve as new data becomes available, these big Crunch theories that are just beginning to emerge are still in their infancy. I would rather a theory which states that there are many galactic clusters out there within the boundless cosmos, each cluster in its own position in Space-time, consisting of billions of Galaxies falling inward toward a Great Abyss, Black Hole, or Bottomless Pit, where it is torn to pieces molecule by molecule, atom by atom, sub-atomic particle by sub-atomic particle, and reconverted into the electromagnetic energy from which they were created and accelerated along the dark worm hole to speeds far, far in excess of the speed of light, where that liquid like Magnetic energy is spewed out in the trillions of degrees, somewhere far beyond the visible horizon of the eternal and boundless cosmos, where, from the cooling quantum of that electromagnetic energy a new universe is created, or rather, the old universe is resurrected, to which the light from its old position in space-time, would take billions upon billions of years to reach it.

Many of those lights that you observe in the night sky, are from galaxies and galactic clusters that have long since been devoured by their central Black Hole, and although they still exist in space-time, they no longer exist in our three dimensional concept of time; even though the light that originated from those long dead clusters will continue to be seen for billions of years to come.
Garbanza
Posts: 1,997
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2015 3:40:22 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/11/2015 2:03:15 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 2/10/2015 7:49:10 PM, Garbanza wrote:
At 2/10/2015 7:44:59 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 2/10/2015 7:41:49 PM, Garbanza wrote:
At 2/10/2015 7:40:32 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 2/10/2015 7:24:49 PM, Garbanza wrote:
At 2/10/2015 7:23:29 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 2/10/2015 7:21:24 PM, Garbanza wrote:
I agree. It's annoying when people set science against religion. It turns science into a religion which it isn't.

Science couldn't care less about religion.
It's religion that is deathly afraid of science.

You know science isn't a person, right? It's not sitting on a cloud up there indifferent to religion?

Science is indifferent to religion. You would need an understanding of the word science if you were to understand that though.

Maybe you could explain it to me. :)

Not my job.

You're speaking from a position of faith then, I think. You believe that an understanding of the word science would lead to the understanding that science is indifferent to religion, but you don't know for sure because you can't explain the word science. That's okay. I respect faith.

Science (from Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge"[1]) is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about nature and the universe. This knowledge is determined through the scientific method by experiments and observations, and may take the form of scientific facts, scientific models, or scientific theories.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

I'll leave it as a homework exercise for you as to where the supernatural fits into the above definition and why science might therefore be indifferent to religion.

It's obvious that religion is in the universe, that it's an aspect of human behavior, cognition, and social organization and therefore within the scope of scientific analysis, and that's just to begin with. I'm not sure if "being in the scope of science" is what you mean by indifferent, though.
Garbanza
Posts: 1,997
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2015 3:41:04 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/11/2015 2:32:55 AM, ThinkFirst wrote:
At 2/10/2015 7:21:24 PM, Garbanza wrote:
I agree. It's annoying when people set science against religion. It turns science into a religion which it isn't.

No one sets science and religion at odds more than religion's other face.

What other face?
bulproof
Posts: 25,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2015 4:02:14 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/11/2015 2:25:08 AM, ThinkFirst wrote:
At 2/10/2015 7:13:01 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 2/10/2015 6:55:54 PM, drpiek wrote:
At 2/10/2015 2:18:07 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 2/10/2015 1:48:18 PM, drpiek wrote:
I read all these attempts to juxtapose scientific findings and religion as if they are at odds. I think the scientific minded that think science could ever disprove god, and the religious who cringe at scientific findings as if they are against god are just silly.

Evolution is a fact and it does not disprove god, it just shows us a little more about how god does things. The same goes for the big bang, old universe, ect. Religion tries to understand the why behind god and has made many mistakes in the understanding of the how. Science disregards the why question and focuses on how god does it.

It is the religious literalists who get all upset when science shows their books written thousands of years ago, got something wrong. In the beginning there was the word, and the word was god, and the word went BANG billions of years ago. Maybe the jews are right and God created Adam and Eve, then when cain was cast out, maybe he found the people who evolved, and took one as a wife. The fact is we do not know it all, the scientific theories and religious theories are just that. Some are more supported than others, but they both point to a greater power that has guided all of this.

Sorry, but science does not demonstrate in any way "a greater power that has guided all of this", you are simply referring to philosophical mumbo jumbo.

And of course, the fact that science has never found any guidance in nature has no bearing at all on religious creation stories. In fact, science would make no mention of any guidance if it weren't brought up by theists, who constantly harp on the fallacy that science is trying to disprove God or that science and religion are not at odds.


To be clear it is God and Science that are not at Odds. Religion is man made and fallible like science.
So are gods.

Welcome back, bro.

Thanks mate.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
dee-em
Posts: 6,474
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2015 4:29:47 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/11/2015 3:40:22 AM, Garbanza wrote:
At 2/11/2015 2:03:15 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 2/10/2015 7:49:10 PM, Garbanza wrote:
At 2/10/2015 7:44:59 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 2/10/2015 7:41:49 PM, Garbanza wrote:
At 2/10/2015 7:40:32 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 2/10/2015 7:24:49 PM, Garbanza wrote:
At 2/10/2015 7:23:29 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 2/10/2015 7:21:24 PM, Garbanza wrote:
I agree. It's annoying when people set science against religion. It turns science into a religion which it isn't.

Science couldn't care less about religion.
It's religion that is deathly afraid of science.

You know science isn't a person, right? It's not sitting on a cloud up there indifferent to religion?

Science is indifferent to religion. You would need an understanding of the word science if you were to understand that though.

Maybe you could explain it to me. :)

Not my job.

You're speaking from a position of faith then, I think. You believe that an understanding of the word science would lead to the understanding that science is indifferent to religion, but you don't know for sure because you can't explain the word science. That's okay. I respect faith.

Science (from Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge"[1]) is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about nature and the universe. This knowledge is determined through the scientific method by experiments and observations, and may take the form of scientific facts, scientific models, or scientific theories.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

I'll leave it as a homework exercise for you as to where the supernatural fits into the above definition and why science might therefore be indifferent to religion.

It's obvious that religion is in the universe, that it's an aspect of human behavior, cognition, and social organization and therefore within the scope of scientific analysis, and that's just to begin with. I'm not sure if "being in the scope of science" is what you mean by indifferent, though.

Don't be deliberately obtuse. We were not talking about religion as a social construct. That is definitely within the domain of behavioural science.

When you wrote:

I agree. It's annoying when people set science against religion. It turns science into a religion which it isn't.

you weren't referring to the social aspects of religion as you are now pretending.

Would you like to show some honesty and admit this so that we can return to the real discussion?
ThinkFirst
Posts: 1,391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2015 1:23:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/11/2015 3:41:04 AM, Garbanza wrote:
At 2/11/2015 2:32:55 AM, ThinkFirst wrote:
At 2/10/2015 7:21:24 PM, Garbanza wrote:
I agree. It's annoying when people set science against religion. It turns science into a religion which it isn't.

No one sets science and religion at odds more than religion's other face.

What other face?

Do I REALLY need to explain this to you?
"Never attribute to villainy that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
-----
"Men rarely if ever dream up a god superior to themselves. Most gods have the manners and morals of a spoiled child. "

-- Robert A Heinlein