Page 41 of 41 FirstFirst ... 31394041
Results 401 to 409 of 409

Thread: Science says Bible and Quran are equivalent

  1. Top | #401
    Contributor DrZoidberg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Copenhagen
    Posts
    7,686
    Archived
    5,746
    Total Posts
    13,432
    Rep Power
    51
    Quote Originally Posted by Lion IRC View Post
    That’s what I thought.

    Huge spans of time.
    Invisible, gradual change.
    Nobody paying much attention to the head count.
    Then, one day somebody looks up and says...hey, look everybody. It’s a bunch of humans. WOW- there’s gotta be at least a thousand
    Nobody knows for sure when/where it all started, so they arbitrarily declare a line in the sand where/when the starters gun went off and 1000 humans all simultaneosly came out of the gate and the human race began.
    Wait... the border between species being arbitrary and it being unknown is different. It is not unknown. We have a good handle on how proto-humans and humans looked at the different stages, and a rough grasp on how many there were. What is arbitrary is how we categorize the taxonomic differences.

    We know exactly where it all started. It started in the Rift Valley in Kenya. Quite a few of the human ancestors stayed but in a fairly small region of Africa. Within a narrow 200 km band, following the flow of a now extinct river.

    Because they stayed put there's a lot about human evolution we have a very firm grasp on.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lion IRC View Post
    Cool story bro. But the exact same events could have commenced with one single human pair who went on have thousands of mutant unique offspring...over “huge spans of time”...with “gradual shifts”...etc etc

    Evolution is creation in slow motion.
    No, it couldn't. Because that's not how evolution works. This is just the same old idiotic Christian attempt to crowbar the Genesis into science, with humorous effect. The big question is why are you and they trying to do it?

    And where does this kind of idiocy stop? Trying to find which early hominid fossil is missing a rib, to find the ancestor of Eve?

    This sort of speculation hasn't got zero cost. There's a disproportionate amount of money spent excavating Isreal because of moronic Christian fundamentalist funding. The world's richest indipendent research fund is the Templeton foundation. Their stated mission is to find proof of God's existence and support for the Bible narrative. Even though, we know for a fact today, that it's a wasted mission. We know they won't find anything. Don't you think that money could be better spent?

    Pope Pius XI made a statement in the 1936 stating the doing science is sacred work and scientific enquiry is one of the primary tools we have to examine God's creation. He also established that there's no conflict between Catholic doctrine and science. Which implies that Christian doctrine is subordinate to science. As far as I know that's still the Catholic churches official stance.... so I don't get why you're trying to crowbar rediculous evangelical Christian ideas into science, that your own church has already rejected?

  2. Top | #402
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    3,468
    Rep Power
    16
    The pope established that there's no conflict between Catholic doctrine and science?
    Technically, it's science which has established that there's no conflict between Catholic doctrine and science.

  3. Top | #403
    Contributor DrZoidberg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Copenhagen
    Posts
    7,686
    Archived
    5,746
    Total Posts
    13,432
    Rep Power
    51
    Quote Originally Posted by Lion IRC View Post
    The pope established that there's no conflict between Catholic doctrine and science?
    Technically, it's science which has established that there's no conflict between Catholic doctrine and science.
    How did science do that? Unless there comes a consensus among the religious on what God is, there's nothing science can test. That may be a good start?

    Right now any pronouncements from individual scientists on the non-conflict between science and religion starts with assumptions on what religion is, that the religious don't agree on. So that's a non-starter. When Stephen Jay Gould came with his non-overlapping magisteria concept, I doubt anybody understood wtf he was talking about. I don't. I personally, I think it was a realization Gould had, that there's no point discussing this with religious people. So instead his focus was on how to shut these people up by making them feel that scientists respected them.

    For some reason I can't find the 1936 pronouncement. But here's the 1929 pronouncement. Perhaps I confused them?

    http://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xi...-magistri.html

    28. This is the more true because the rights of the family and of the State, even the rights of individuals regarding a just liberty in the pursuit of science, of methods of science and all sorts of profane culture, not only are not opposed to this pre-eminence of the Church, but are in complete harmony with it.
    The above implies that science always over-rules Catholic doctrine whenever there's a conflict.

    And finally... there's many definitions on what God and religion is. Here's mine. God is about our relationship with the unknown, and how we deal with it. The apparent lack of answers in life is inherently traumatic for any thinking human.

    The Christian concept of God is clever in the sense that it combines God as a mystery (the ineffibility of God) with God is something knowable (the commandments).

    We will believe something, either consciously or subconsciously. That's just how our brains work. Embracing the unknown only, and rejecting every hypoethesis (due to lack of evidence), isn't on the menu. We will automatically pick one.

    Life is more pleasurable if we cultivate pronoia, ie the belief that the universe is conspiring to help you. I think that's the secret sauce here. We all want to be happy, so it's hard to argue that this is wrong. While unlikely true... why not believe it?

    What I'm trying to say is that whether or not God or science is true are different types of questions.

    That's why creationism is so dumb. Everything in the Bible is speculations either about the unknown, or speculations on the human psyche. If it's about the unknown then science always trumps the Bible. Because the Bible is just, at best, guessowork. Where science is backed up by evidence. Which is what pope Pius XI said. If not explicitly, certainly implicitly.

  4. Top | #404
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Columbia, SC
    Posts
    849
    Archived
    2,799
    Total Posts
    3,648
    Rep Power
    50
    Quote Originally Posted by Lion IRC View Post
    10,000 humans all spontaneously and simultaneously popped into existence?
    WOW

    ...and folks say the bible is hard to believe.
    And once again we have the classic ploy of the creationist - make up an absurd strawman argument and attack it vigorously, while deliberately ignoring the real argument.

    There is evidence that hominids, both anatomically modern Homo sapiens, as well as older species such as australopithecine and Homo erectus, experienced population bottlenecks at various point in time. Most recently, the data from our genome suggests that the population of modern humans on the planet living in Africa dropped to small numbers, as low as 10,000 to 30,000 individuals, within the last 70,000 to 100,000 years. At this point we don't have enough evidence to nail the numbers and dates down more firmly.

    And no, these humans did not just pop into existence, they descended from a very long of ancestors ultimately stretching back to Earth's oceans almost 4 billion years ago. For the majority of our planet's history, life was restricted to single-cell self replicating organisms, not much more than tiny packets of self-replicating molecules, most of which occur naturally on Earth, and in asteroids and comets (amino acids).

    Early in the history of our planet, about 3.5 BYA, life evolved the ability to capture energy from sunlight and create food. About 2 BYA, life evolved to form the first complex cells, or eukaryotic cell. Complex organisms today including humans are built using such cells. About 1.5 BYA life evolved the ability to reproduce sexually, by exchanging reproductive cells or gametes. Sexual reproduction allowed the organisms' genes to be shuffled from generation to generation, allowing much greater diversity upon which natural selection could act. Around the same time, we have the advent of the first multi-cellular organisms, like sponges, where colonies of cells would bind together using collagen to produce structures that could more more effectively use the resources available to them.

    About 600 million years ago, we have fossil evidence for the first large organisms with complex, multi-cellular body structures like Charnia. Charnia and other pre-Cambrian organisms built their bodies using just 6 to 12 instructions (as opposed to the many tens of thousands in modern humans), using simple, repeated fractal patterns. More sophisticated than sponges (also multicultural), and more complex.

    And then things began to heat up. Between about 580 and 500 MYA, life evolved more sophisticated features, like vision, and complex body structures that were constructed using the larger instruction sets encoded in their genomes. We have a vast array of fossil evidence from this period, organism like trilobites (arthropods), that show us the diversity evolution can produce in relatively short periods of geological time. Organisms also evolved the ability to prey on other organisms, building ecosystems with predators and prey, which added fuel to the fire by starting a biological arms race that continues to this day. The latter 20 to 25 million years of this period is often referred to as the Cambrian explosion, where the diversity of life on the planet exploded, and most of the modern biological phyla lineages were produced. Animals began moving to land, which had previously only been colonized by plants and insects. Fish evolved feet and lungs, and gave rise to the amphibians and reptiles. And much later, birds and mammals.

    Reptiles ruled the planet for hundreds of millions of years, until all the larger reptiles (dinosaurs) were killed off about 60 MYA when Earth was impacted by an enormous asteroid. Extinction events are not uncommon in life's history, but this particular event has great significance to our own species. By killing of the dominant life forms on the planet, it allowed mammals to proliferate and take over the planet. About 7MYA we start to see the first hominid (human like) fossils, apes that responded to changing climatic conditions by spending more time on the ground instead of the trees. They learned to walk upright, and by about 2.5 to 3 MYA they had begum to makes their own stone tools for hunting and dressing meat. Their brains started to grow bigger, going from about 400 to 500 cc, to about 1,600cc in modern humans, likely driven by an increasingly complex social organization in their colonies or tribes, and by climate change. Scientists have found the fossils of over a dozen hominid species in this time period, evolving over time, culminating in very sophisticated human like organisms like Homo erectus and Homo neanderthalensis. And of course, Homo sapiens, who first appeared on the plains of eastern Africa about 200 MYA. None of the other hominids have survived to the present day, but there were still pockets of neanderthals living in Europe 10,000 to 20,000 years ago, along with the descendants of Homo erectus who had fanned out over vast territories.

    That is our story. We were not created as Adam and Eve by a supernatural creator in a magical Garden of Eden, we evolved from older hominid species. Our story is written in our genomes, in how our genes build our bodies, and the countless fossils we have uncovered. Our closest relatives on the planet today are the chimpanzees and bonobos, with whom we share a common ancestor about 6MYA, because we have compared our genomes to their genomes, and done the math.

    We know all this because a countless number of scientists have spent their lives studying the natural world, and adding to our knowledge of the same. We don't know everything about everything, and many of the details of this story are open to debate, but the foundation that our story is built on is irrefutable. There is a natural explanation for our existence which requires no magic or supernatural creators. Now you know our story, and can no longer pretend to be ignorant or attack strawmen without engaging on the facts.

  5. Top | #405
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    seattle
    Posts
    4,297
    Rep Power
    10
    Science saus east plenty of vegetables.
    Science says brush your teeth,
    Science says if you step off a building you go down.

    Science says nothing about religion. Science can falsify physical claims about religion. Like young Earth creationism.

  6. Top | #406
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    3,468
    Rep Power
    16
    I'm just happy science hasn't falsified my religion

  7. Top | #407
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Columbia, SC
    Posts
    849
    Archived
    2,799
    Total Posts
    3,648
    Rep Power
    50
    Quote Originally Posted by Lion IRC View Post
    I'm just happy science hasn't falsified my religion
    You did not arrive at your religious beliefs through the study of facts and the use of reason and logic, which is how science works. So it would seem improbable that you would be swayed from your beliefs by anything science has to say. The irony is that you passively acknowledge the power of science to illuminate how the natural world works every day when you post on these forums using a computer, electrical power from the grid, and an international communication network which were all created using science.

  8. Top | #408
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    seattle
    Posts
    4,297
    Rep Power
    10
    Quote Originally Posted by Lion IRC View Post
    I'm just happy science hasn't falsified my religion
    The point us it can not. On the otter hand religion can not ignore science.

    A Jew Moses Maimonides around the 12th century wrote that when interpretation of scripture conflicts with established science interpretation must change.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gu..._the_Perplexed

  9. Top | #409
    Contributor DrZoidberg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Copenhagen
    Posts
    7,686
    Archived
    5,746
    Total Posts
    13,432
    Rep Power
    51
    Quote Originally Posted by Lion IRC View Post
    I'm just happy science hasn't falsified my religion
    Do you have any religious belief that is scientifically testable?

Similar Threads

  1. Are GMO foods really substantially equivalent
    By Will Wiley in forum Natural Science
    Replies: 55
    Last Post: 03-28-2017, 08:55 PM
  2. The Quran
    By DLH in forum Religious Texts
    Replies: 49
    Last Post: 11-24-2015, 06:15 AM
  3. Science And The Bible
    By DLH in forum Religions vs. Science
    Replies: 89
    Last Post: 07-12-2015, 09:09 PM
  4. Replies: 18
    Last Post: 10-31-2014, 03:45 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •