God and Science are not mutually exlcusive......

Post Reply New Topic

I believe God created Science and we can use it as a tool to understand the environment with more clarity. God invented Science and he works through doctors and medicine and He is the one doing this. Man takes the credit because in his own arrogance this is his world view. However, there are quite a few Doctors that do believe in God- despite what the Atheist movement says, and also God and Science are not things that oppose each other. They support each other.

Luke, the Evangelist was a Doctor, btw.

Cool, so God is happy about the scientific discovery of evolution and the ongoing discoveries science is making about our evolution and that of the other great apes from our common ancestor.

You are going to have to do better than simply stating something is true. That may work for the faithiests, but skeptics require reasons. The fact is you don't really believe in the scientific consensus when it conflicts with your cherished worldview. This itself is anti-science. Scientists change their worldview due to evidence. Religion is fixed. They are not compatible whatsoever, they are opposites.

Yes, Doctors and some scientists believe in God, but that's an argument from authority. It doesn't mean they have sound reasons for their faith.

False. Because if someone is critically objective, they can't rule out a higher power. They have to keep their minds open. But in Science everything has cause and effect- so therefor where did the Big Bang Originate- if it were simply a random effect, what was that cause? The problem lies that Evolution has its own agenda- just as much if not more than Spiritual beliefs. So an evolutionist naturally keeps trying to support his own world view- therefor non-Scientific.

All the evidence shows that evolution is true and that humans, gorillas, chimpanzees and other apes evolved from a common ancestor. As we are now analysing DNA in great detail, our common ancestry is beyond dispute. Yet because evolution is contrary to your holy book you deny the reality and stick with your book.

Your attitude is the same as fundamentalist Muslims who also stick to their holy book rather than accept what has evidence has shown to be true:

Not necessarily.

Evolution doesn't have an agenda. Facts do not have agendas.

Scientists never set out to challenge religion, what happened is people like Galileo found out things that directly changed the status quo. This challenged religious doctrine and they persecuted him for it.

9/10 scientists could care less about targeting religion, they are simply seeking truth. But they can't avoid the zealots.

But reality is scientists are constantly channeled by religious people who don't like what they have to say, so in fact many of them are quite happy to respond in kind. There is a saying "if you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen". It is scientist's job to scrutinize things, especially if someone is challenging them.

You say that a higher power can't be ruled out. However in logical deduction you move from the most likely to to the least likely scenario. There is a massive gulf between the concept of a creator, and the entire Christian doctrine. Much of that has nothing whatsoever to do with science including the Genesis story.

Christian doctrine make the following assumptions about the creator:

1. The creator is still there
2. The creator cares what happens or even thinks at all
3. The creator wants to be worshiped
4. The creator cares about ritual
5. The creator is moral absolutist
6. The creator contradicts itself about being a moral absolutist and is hypocritical
7. The creator likes arbitrary rules the make no sense and have nothing to do with morality
8. The creator suddenly decided 4000 year ago, to create an arbitrary doctrine, in an arbitrary place, which is suspiciously like an offshoot Canaanite culture, and at first had five different versions doctrine, even multiple gods and even a wife of Yahweh, and only became monotheistic after Babylonian invasion.
9. The creator we will meet in the afterlife or there even is an afterlife.
10. The creator is happy to let pain and suffering happen in order to prove a point, when as a creator not just of the universe but of us could easily determine we lead good and moral lives, and has no reason to play this game, or we should even respect them for it.

Last edited by 0_equals_true on 08 Sep 2014, 2:12 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Btw evolution has nothing to do with genesis.

The area of science that concerns creation is called abiogenesis. Or how life came about it in the first place.

I don't rule out a higher power, but that in itself isn't justification for believing in God. There's a million things I can't rule out entirely, I don't believe in all of them.

Yes, perhaps the Big Bang did have a cause, but can you show that cause is your God?

There is no such thing as an evolutionist, only scientists working in the field of evolutionary biology. Can you show what part of evolution is not scientific?

Are you that eager to hear the same old debunked creationists arguments again?

It's always possible a creationist will learn to think critically.

I was too cynical again, but usually it's the same arguments (fallacies, misconceptions, falsehoods) that have been floating around for years or even decades.

Critical thinking will always be overruled by religious beliefs. If a creationist allowed himself to think critically he'd discover that evolution is true and that would be enough to upturn his whole world view. So they prefer to remain in ignorance of science because the reality is too painful for them to handle.

It does get rather tedious debunking the creationists arguments. They all seem to feed from the same websites drawing on the same ignorance and misinformation. The moment you start to get into details they reveal they don't know what they are talking about and are just quoting rubbish stated by other creationists who have an equal ignorance of science.

If what AspE said was "false", why did you then go on to agree with what he said? RE: critical objectivity - are you open to the possibility that there aren't any gods?



The origin of our universe remains a mystery to all honest scientists, although there are a number of very plausible theories.

Evolution has no agenda. Rather, it is a scientific theory, consisting of a collection of observations and subject to the highest level of scrutiny. It's ironic that you suggest an agenda before immediately using creationist terminology. There is no such thing as an "evolutionist", nor is "evolutionist" the diametric opposite of "creationist". The war on reason has already been fought and lost. You should find a better use for your time.

This is what Penn Jillette said in their Penn & Teller BS series, in the Bible episode: "" If you're religious and you believe the Bible is real because of faith, we can't touch you. It's an automatic tie, no one can bust you. But if faith isn't enough, if you want history or fact in your Bible, you are so screwed."
Debunking creationist stuff doesn't matter if the person has already decided to take it all on faith.
That Penn & Teller BS series is so great btw. Most episodes are on youtube I think, at least the Bible one is. Can't post it here because of the language. They use profanity because they can't call people frauds, but it's legal to call them as*holes.