That is because they have science behind them, while the religious lot have only "faith"
Christian assemblies in schools could face axe over claims they infringe children's human rights
- Thread starter Metatron
- Start date
- Status
That is because they have science behind them, while the religious lot have only "faith"
*sigh* oh dear not again
I tried to explain this fallacy in your logic in another thread and you never replied. Apologies for anyone who thinks the following might be boring, I think it's quite interesting
Have you ever heard of Darwin's 'abominable mystery'?
Despite coming up with evolution, Darwin could never understand how the flower evolved. It was just impossible as it made no sense whatsoever what set of intermediates could exist between the angiosperms (flowering plants) and the gymnosperms (non-flowering plants, the most 'advance' of which have cones instead of flowers). Darwin even wrote with dispair that this truly was an 'abominable mystery'. For decades people hypothesised and failed to come up with any logical sollution to the dilemma - there was no evidence to suggest that one was a decendent of the other.
Through the 1990s a very clever team of scientists decided they would see what happened if the knocked out the genes that were being expressed in the flowers of the plant - using technology that was unheard of only 30 years before.
They found out that by knocking out the location of where certain genes were expressed, they could totally change the morphology of the flower. They called this the ABC model:
(bonus picture)
http://dev.biologists.org/content/131/24/6083/F1.large.jpg
Ultimately, they found out by changing the location of where the A, B and C genes were expressed, and in which quantities, they could essentially transform a cone producing plant into one that produced flowers, and a flower producing plant into something that resembled an unconventional cone. In other words, they found evidence to suggest that flowers probably evolved as a result of a series of transcriptional and translational mutations in the A, B and C genes of plants
Now, you might be wandering what this has to do with anything, but there are a few things you should take note of.
1) Science never assumes that something is not true because there is no evidence to support it.
2) A lack of evidence is not evidence to the contrary.
3) Just because we don't have a way of observing something, doesn't mean we might not be able to do so in the future.
Not at all.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19956961/ns/world_news-europe/
Like i've said, i really think religion needs to come into the modern world. That is not believing this character created the earth with his hands, absolutley ridiculous. If you believe that then your a nutjob. Religion is about peace and harmony, looking out for people around you and aswell yourself. It's a team!
Last edited:
So we are saying that the bible should not be taken literally then, and that it is just a collection of stories? (ie Genesis is just a story)
Give yourself a pat on the back!
Some people think of the bible as fictional stories, but still believe in a god in the Christian sense, yes.
God is not a belief though, God is an "entity", one that is supposed to be all powerful, all knowing, etc
And Nitefly, as I have posted before, we have plenty of evidence that precludes a God as defined by the Bible from existing ... unless you start changing the game and changing who God is.
And Nitefly, as I have posted before, we have plenty of evidence that precludes a God as defined by the Bible from existing ... unless you start changing the game and changing who God is.
Last edited:
I probably didnt word my phrase correctly. God for me and believing in god is about moral supriority. It's probably the wrong way of saying things, i should probably say i don't believe in god but am religious.
What science....I'm still waiting for the factual scientific evidence that God doesn't exist you claimed there was so much of before and yet have failed to produce...
You can have morality and so on without being religious or believing in God though ... in fact there is no need to believe in anything in order to have morals and so forth
Are we going with the "Bible is 100% how things happened" that a few people (mainly American) believe in? In which case evolution precludes the LITERAL meaning of creation.
Or do we go with the lot that believe that the earth is only 10k years old?
Or what?
The problem is, unless you pick a definition of God I cannot post some existing scientific theory that puts a hole in that definition
What definition of God are we going with?
Are we going with the "Bible is 100% how things happened" that a few people (mainly American) believe in? In which case evolution precludes the LITERAL meaning of creation.
Or do we go with the lot that believe that the earth is only 10k years old?
Or what?
The problem is, unless you pick a definition of God I cannot post some existing scientific theory that puts a hole in that definition
Last edited:
Even the bible itself mentions the allegorical nature of Genesis.
Define God?
does disproving that the biblical interpretation (you have yet to supply scientific evidence of your claims of such) mean there is no God?
Atheist's do not say, Christianity's God doesn't exist in isolation, they mean God in all it's conceptual/metaphysical personifications.
They cannot prove this scientifically, it is a faith based proposition in the same way that a belief in God is.
Ha-Ha where's a picture of Nelson.
really you should go learn what science is and what it shows, before making silly statements. Atheists can use science as much as a religious person can use science.
God is allegedly omnipotent, thus definition is immaterial. If you can disprove God then whether God is based on this or that human interpretation shouldn't matter.
You can't, you know it, and you have been lying all along.
and how does that help atheists and their claims. It's certainly not with the use of science.
Well we have evidence that genesis didn't happen, yes.
I think that prescribing a God as the one that exists as stated word for word in the bible is a bit unfair or unrealistic, because people take what they like and leave what they don't. The bible is full of things that people pay little attention to nowadays. Do christians all still eat fish on a friday? The ones I know certainly don't. In the bible it implies that it is forbidden to be a homosexual. I think that it would be unreasonable for a god to forbid that unless he is vengeful and unreasonable. I assume quite a few Christians discard it for that reason too.
I'm sort of reminded of those posters who imply that those Muslims that have sex before marriage or drink, or intergrate are not Muslims, which is a bit silly really. In doing so they are pre-determining some characteristics which they deem to be essential, but in reality they are not. This goes the same for how people describe a god. I would imagine that most people these days use the bible for guidance, particuarly the new testament (Jesus, fictional or not, was after all a pretty awesome guy) and come up with their own personal version of how a god could exist or what he might be like.
So whilst things in the bible can be criticised for being implausable or unreasonable, that doesn't preclude the core features of the Christian god existing (that is some sort of concious that created the universe). I don't think that is shifting the goal posts at all, it's just being realistic about it and not seeing things in black and white.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 7 Jul 2009
- Posts
- 16,234
- Location
- Newcastle/Aberdeen
The burden of proof is always on those that suggested it in the first place...
There is your first error. God is a concept. Religions generally attach an anthropomorphic or animalistic personification to the concept, but atheists believe the concept is false, something you said science has disproved....
So ... so far I have 3 people asking me to use science to disprove God, yet none of them have been able to give me a definition of God ... and in fact, I have been told to not use the Bible (which some believe to be the word of God)
Maybe I should go read the Qur'an and disprove parts of that, as afaik that is seen as words of Allah still?
EDIT: Castiel ... a concept, really? How does "a concept" create the universe?
Maybe I should go read the Qur'an and disprove parts of that, as afaik that is seen as words of Allah still?
EDIT: Castiel ... a concept, really? How does "a concept" create the universe?
- Status