Science and Faith

[Kalium]

There is a God. To not believe in a higher power is probably the ultimate arrogance.

Not so. The height of arrogance is to say "There is a higher power, it created me, and it specifically cares about me and what I do to the exclusion of all else that is". That is arrogance of the highest degree. To place yourself above the rest of the universe is probably the greatest arrogance possible, absent multiple universes.

A million monkeys pounding on a million keyboards WILL NOT produce the works of Shakespeare

Make a few simplifying assumptions, run the numbers, and then give me the odds. You cannot, in all intellectual honesty, make the claim that it cannot happen. Well, unless you happen to know fuck-all about statistics, probability, and randomness.

If I was God, and there were people walking around sincerely believing that all this incredible stuff I put together was a product of trillions of years of random chances and misfires, I would be laughing my ass off.

Start laughing. If you think all of evolution is random, you really have no clue what you're talking about.

All you have to do is look up at the stars on a cloudless night to figure out there is a lot more to life than science.

Astronomy is a wondrous field.

There is a theory that god created everything just the way it is now and seeded fossils in the rock to throw us off the correct answer.

It's called "Last Thursdayism". It's unprovable, unfalsifiable, and makes no predictions. It's pretty worthless.

There is another theory that micro-evolution is true but macro-evolution is not so god made one type of cat which went through changes to produce all the felines we see now.

This is called "Young-Earth Creationism". It suffers from a dramatic dearth of evidence.

Now personally I do believe in evolution and I do know more of the facts behind it that the vast majority of believers, however my point is that evolution is not the only possibility to explain the world we see today. Unless there's someone around that can honestly say 'Yeah, I remember the day when the amoeba grew legs and walked out of the ocean...' then evolution is a theory. And not even a well established theory like gravity, it's a theory that's undergone a lot of changes and appears that it will go through more.

Oh, do not pull this semantic crap with me, godix. You're smarter than that. In the context of science, 'theory' means something very different. It doesn't mean 'idea'. That's a hypothesis. A scientific theory is a system that explains current evidence and makes predictions. Evolution is very well-supported by the evidence, should one bother to actually check. Yes, it's been changed and added to. That is the nature of science. If you want solid and unchanging, go back to the Bible.

And please, stop abusing the English language. What has it ever done to you?

[Arigatomina]

There is a theory that god created everything just the way it is now and seeded fossils in the rock to throw us off the correct answer. There is another theory that micro-evolution is true but macro-evolution is not so god made one type of cat which went through changes to produce all the felines we see now.

There's no supportive evidence for either of those theories, and you know it. That's why they're religious theories (all with roots in Creationist arguments) and not scientific ones. There isn't even evidence in the bible to make anyone think God would take that much time in between those "seven days" to create traps and tricks and "oh this will really throw them for a loop" fakes when he didn't even plan men to get out of the garden to start with. Those aren't theories, either. They're hypotheses that will never be proven because in the first one only God can tell us if he's a practical joker and in the second, only God knows why he let four legged animals evolve from big cats into little cats and whether they came from the same source animal as dogs and foxes, or not. It's not science when God's the only one who knows the answer and he's not talking.

When scientists have a skull, thighbone, and one or two ribs they do the best they can but can you really say they have enough to actually prove anything?

You can't learn much from one fossil, but once more specimins are found you can work toward completing the picture. Oddly enough, some of the rarest "links" are found in various places. Other intermediate fossils are suprisingly complete - like Lucy's. Don't forget that hoaxes are quickly discovered because the bones don't match. Scientists validate their evidence before putting weight on that evidence. You're not giving them enough credit. They actually have to prove their hypothesis before they can teach them as "proven theories" and that means multiple fossils must be found even for the rarest animal before they can state (as a fact) that animal once existed. They don't base it around one incomplete pile of bones.

...evolution is not the only possibility to explain the world we see today. Unless there's someone around that can honestly say 'Yeah, I remember the day when the amoeba grew legs and walked out of the ocean...' then evolution is a theory.

Hypothesis. You're saying it hasn't been proven yet. But, yeah, I agree about the amoeba bit. I only buy the fossil record - not the big bang guesses and plants turning into animals. Animals all follow the same patterns. Plants are an entirely different group. A link is not self evident and we've found proof of it.

And not even a well established theory like gravity, it's a theory that's undergone a lot of changes and appears that it will go through more.

Yes, but you have to admit that it's always been religious groups attacking evolution. Darwinism would have been accepted if he hadn't mentioned the self-evident fact that apes and humans look the same. No one wants to accept that, Lucy's two branches or not. It's icky. Humans are special, we're not animals. Gravitation, on the other hand, only had to fight for a hundred years or so before people stopped getting hung and burned for claiming the earth rotated around the sun instead of the other way around. It doesn't matter which body does the rotating, or if God used gravitational force to keep his sun shining on the earth as long as humans aren't lumped with apes. That's just insulting and anti-biblical.

It's not the science that people have always had a problem with, it's the way that science makes it hard to believe the earth was made in seven days and men were made out of clay. Most advanced countries still teach evolution and will continue to long after the US starts teaching Genesis to kids in public schools.

[Otohiko]

Do I agree with those morals? Sometimes. I think the 'thou shall not kill' rule is a pretty damn good idea while the 'hate homosexuals' rule is destructive, unfair, and just wrong. But overall my morality, and almost everyone elses except for true psychopaths, is shaped largely by my society which in turn is largely shaped by religion. Thus religion is far more influencal in morality and is a far better viewpoint to looking and judging morals.

Oh, I'm totally up for a pragmatic approach to morals. In fact as I said, I basically embrace Christian moral philosophy. I think we need to distinguish between moral philosophy and moral dogma. I'm entirely in favour of a weighted and pragmatic moral philosophy - just not "god says masturbation makes you go to hell" and such.

[Fall_Child42]

Don't forget that hoaxes are quickly discovered because the bones don't match. Scientists validate their evidence before putting weight on that evidence. You're not giving them enough credit. They actually have to prove their hypothesis before they can teach them as "proven theories" and that means multiple fossils must be found even for the rarest animal before they can state (as a fact) that animal once existed. They don't base it around one incomplete pile of bones.

I'm gonna pull the old Brontasaurus the beloved animal we all learned about as children, a creature that lived in prehistory, Quite the popular Dinosaur if i remeber correctly. (not mine of course I liked the pterodactyl) It starred in the popular animated feature The land before time and god knows how many sequals. Never existed. Body and head from two different dinosaurs. Never knew all that was required for proof was Fossil Lego.

[Arigatomina]

Never knew all that was required for proof was Fossil Lego.

Times change when it comes to science. Technology changes with time. Scientists admit when they make mistakes and adjust to correct them. The missnamed bracheosaurus was a mistake and they admitted it. If you look at online talk about the land before time today, children now call Little Foot a bracheosaurus - because the mistake was corrected in time to teach them the real name of that dinosaur. It's not science's fault some people graduated from high school before they got the memo on that particular fossil. And do keep in mind that fossil was missnamed over 100 years ago. We have much better databases to use in classification and comparison for fossils found in the last 20 years.

[requiett]

How about the Pyramids. People have been trying to figure that shit out for quite a while and still nothing.

Um, that one was solved a year or two ago. They did it by using the wind. Think of kites and rollers. I don't remember which journal it was published in, but it was big news a while back. They even uncovered the paths they used to bring the stones in and the times when the wind was best for the work. I'm sure there's a book out on it by now.

Nuuu! It wuz ALIEEEEEEEEEEEENZ! Grays are responsible for all of humanity's most profound achievements! Dis is da troof as reeveeled to me by the dead spirit of Hercules the 3rd.

[Tono_Fyr]

God is an amoeba. (Well, maybe not an amoeba…but some sort of microscopic organism. “Amoeba” just sounds better than “some sort of primitive, prehistoric microscopic organism.) Think about it. The bible says god created us in his image, right? Now, assuming life started out single-celled and evolved into more complex organisms, god would have created the prokaryotes in his image, which eventually evolved into man. How is it that god is everywhere at once? Mitosis. How is it that god is watching over us without us being able to see him/her/it? God is microscopic. There you have it. Can’t disprove it, can you?

http://www.deviantart.com/deviation/38985961/

That's all I'll say as it pertains to this topic.

[x_rex30]

If god has ever helped anyone it's because comfort is comfort, if anyone thinks someone is looking out for them at all times and watches you and guides you with some telepathic communication, of course you'd feel better, but those voices in your head that you think is god is actually your insanity. Everyone has a little in them, but anyone who has these superstitious beliefs are just feeding it. Stop the madness, once we throw this garbage away and stop believing in magic fixes, we'll be able to make the world a lot better place.

[Kitsuner]

WHERE IS YOUR GOD NOW?