Science can't destroy Religion

  • Thread starter Thread starter CopticChristian
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

CopticChristian

Guest
Every Sunday, Wednesday and Friday night Scientists gather at the Church of Science…they can be seen at airports handing out leaflets seeking converts to the Gathering of Science to destroy Religion…the television airways are filled with stations dedicated to Scientists preaching that you must listen to the words of Science and confess your allegiance…thousands daily are donated to Scientists that promise that money donated as seed money will gain you everlasting wealth…

Physicists claim primacy of fact, while Chemists are hopelessly divided amongst themselves…inorganic, organic and Biochemistry…leadership of the Geologist meet weekly to celebrate rock day and Naaaahhhh…

Science is not organized like religion, Science isn’t intended to do anything except look into what it is they choose to study…When the history of Science is examined what you see is Christian, Jew and others that actually had a concern for God…

• Louis Pasteur
• Alexander Fleming
• Galileo
• Nicholas Copernicus
• Rene Descartes
• Marie Curie
• Gregor Mendel
• Sir Francis Bacon
• Johannes Kepler
• Blaise Pascal
• Isaac Newton
• Robert Boyle
• Michael Faraday
• Willliam Thomson Kelvin
• Max Planck
• Albert Einstein

Science can’t destroy religion and therefore must not be thought of as anything based in reality…

and you think?
 
CopticChristian said:
Science can’t destroy religion and therefore must not be thought of as anything based in reality…

and you think?
Click to expand...
Science is firmly rooted in reality.

But I don’t think science will ever destroy religion.

Nothing will ever destroy religion.

We are a people of stories and folktales and we would be the poorer for losing that trait.

We will always tell each other fantastical tales and take delight in them.

Some people will always believe that man was created by a God, that the world is 6000 years old, that the world was flooded, and so on.

Sarah x 🙂
 
atheistgirl said:
Science is firmly rooted in reality.

But I don’t think science will ever destroy religion.

Nothing will ever destroy religion.

We are a people of stories and folktales and we would be the poorer for losing that trait.

We will always tell each other fantastical tales and take delight in them.

Some people will always believe that man was created by a God, that the world is 6000 years old, that the world was flooded, and so on.

Sarah x 🙂
Click to expand...
Sarah,

If you read Psychocybernetics you will come to understand that imagined reality is as real as anything else…👍

Sounds like your in…🙂
 
True science cannot destroy religion but scientism can and is attempting to do so.

Most attacks against faith by people claiming science as their weapon know nothing about theology. They have a vague notion of it based on what they stopped learning at age 12 and think they know it all.

The various scientists who have attacked religion recently sound like uneducated children. I would never dare to talk about a subject about which I knew so little as they religion but since they think it’s a matter of opinion they think they are free to declare whatever ignorance they have. It’s ridiculous.

Real science is the study of natural phenomena, not speculation about things outside its boundaries. I only wish people would admit as much and leave theology to theologians.
 
Science explains the How of the world, and Religion explains the Why.

I have never seen why the two need conflict with each other, and most of the early great scientific minds didn’t, either.

Indeed, to me, science points to the existence of God and His love for all of creation. How glorious to be a scientist and see the handiwork of God in all its intricate detail!
 
atheistgirl said:
Science is firmly rooted in reality.

But I don’t think science will ever destroy religion.

Nothing will ever destroy religion.

We are a people of stories and folktales and we would be the poorer for losing that trait.

We will always tell each other fantastical tales and take delight in them.

Some people will always believe that man was created by a God, that the world is 6000 years old, that the world was flooded, and so on.

Sarah x 🙂
Click to expand...
Yes, and, Religion will never destroy science, either, because Science needs it’s share of Fairy Tales like abiogenisis.😉

I am still waiting for Science to make up it’s mind as to whether the Dinosaurs were killed off by a Comet/meteor or if they evolved into chickens!😃
 
Nimzovik said:
I am still waiting for Science to make up it’s mind as to whether the Dinosaurs were killed off by a Comet/meteor or if they evolved into chickens!😃
Click to expand...
My chickens are definately dinosaurs 😃

If we only had the Bible to go by, we’d still be thinking we get striped cattle from looking at stripped bark!

I guess in some ways, the writers of those books were early scientists in the sense that they put forward a hypothesis that could be falsified 😃

Sarah x 🙂
 
atheistgirl said:
My chickens are definately dinosaurs 😃

If we only had the Bible to go by, we’d still be thinking we get striped cattle from looking at stripped bark!

I guess in some ways, the writers of those books were early scientists in the sense that they put forward a hypothesis that could be falsified 😃

Sarah x 🙂
Click to expand...
The lines are starting to blur more, but there is still a line. Impossible to predict the future, though the trend is clear.
 
Properly reasoned science has no power to do so since it is a subset of truth.
 
There was matter and then consciousness? Nay I say! There is consciousness and then matter!!

Quantum Physics regards,
Nimzovik:cool:
 
Al_Moritz said:
An origin of life by natural causes is now highly probable, see my article for Talkorigins.org, a leading evolution website:

talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/originoflife.html
Click to expand...
Fascinating read. I’m molecular biologist by training so I appreciate the work. Nostalgic of those undergrad years when I parsed genetic sequences and tinkered with e.coli. 🤓

RNA precursor theory is plausible but it will be challenging to proceed to postulate how RNA molecule, being short sequences and highly reactive, can ever transit into long sequence and stable DNA+protein complex, while the codes get organized along the double helix strand. The mathematical probability seems less than the inverse function of the age of the universe.

Did virus evolve from RNA or devolve from prokaryote? Sigh…science, the more we know, the more we don’t know. Pretty much like faith.
 
Al_Moritz said:
An origin of life by natural causes is now highly probable, see my article for Talkorigins.org, a leading evolution website:

talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/originoflife.html

(BTW, in case that based on this you think I am an atheist: I am a Roman Catholic.)
Click to expand...
Indeed. However your site does indeed suppose much methhinks. 1) Have all the studies mentioned been replicated? 2) is there any thing remotely approaching universal acceptance of the math involved in terms of ,chaining etc? 3) Has life been reproduced? Has life been defined? Need I go on? Has there been repeatedly demonstrable sequentialization for the miscellaneous leaps nescessary to even approach rudimentary life? Indeed. Some evolutionist may argue that -fire- is a form of life. It moves. It feeds. Sorry. Not this kid. Are the conditions of the primordial soup or pre biotic millieu exactly known? :rolleyes: At best all presented is conjecture in terms of postulated theory. Granted some of the studies presented may produce some interesting combinative possibilites, however it is not quite there yet now is it? Not even close.
Perhaps amino acids can be replicated, however they can be replicated in a machine(highly supposed environment) designed to indeed, replicate amino acids. Then there is -after amino acids - then how/what?

Then of course when the quantum world is mixed in, in terms of how particles behave when observed, well… just who or what was observing all these reactions? God? Can one definitively say there was no observer during the time of origin? If there was an observer - was it abiogenesis?

To use the term ‘highly probable’ is a bit much methinks. Quite a leap indeed. Atheist or Catholic.

However if you wish to put your Faith in it…😉
 
DeepBlueSea said:
Fascinating read. I’m molecular biologist by training so I appreciate the work. Nostalgic of those undergrad years when I parsed genetic sequences and tinkered with e.coli.

RNA precursor theory is plausible but it will be challenging to proceed to postulate how RNA molecule, being short sequences and highly reactive, can ever transit into long sequence and stable DNA+protein complex, while the codes get organized along the double helix strand. The mathematical probability seems less than the inverse function of the age of the universe.

Did virus evolve from RNA or devolve from prokaryote? Sigh…science, the more we know, the more we don’t know. Pretty much like faith.
Click to expand...
The inadequacy of neoDarwinism is indisputable! You probably know the book Developmental Plasticity and Evolution by Mary Jane West-Eberhard but others may not and there are online extracts:

books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=bcKEjJqnW7MC&oi=fnd&pg=PA3&dq=developmental+plasticity&ots=Fu7UwrqbYt&sig=sgtH5g20K5_mvqU4U1hcTDPgSfI#v=onepage&q=developmental%20plasticity&f=false
 
I would be the last person to discourage science to keep on trying to take a stab at it (abiogenesis.) however- good luck with that. It will not be solved with any degree of certainty in your life time, Mr. Moritz methinks. Is there more profitable ways to spend one’s time?

For myself I choose prayer. What to loose there? Especially since all knowledge may be revealed once we reach heaven. For me, just IMHO, I can not be bothered to pursue such to the exclusion of other more important matters.

For some inexplicable reason I am reminded of the scientists that put humans in centrifugal machines. The subjects hallucinated, some of the hallucinations were of a ‘religious’ nature. Then some of the scientists used this as an argument to assert that religion is delusion. :rolleyes:

Wait a minute! They traumatize the brain and wonder why it hallucinates? :D;):rolleyes:
 
Hey… wait a minute! Isn’t evolution one of the ‘bannable’ subjects here? Because people get too worked up about it?

Yikes! Cheese it! I b gettin on the down low! 😉
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top