does science disprove religion?

Well, science can certainly disprove certain tenets of religion, which this seems to acknowledge, but this is rather spineless, and as you say, politicized.

I love the opening sentence, it really bodes well for the rest of the article

there will always be untestable claims in religion, but the attitude of science is not & should not be that it's ok to believe any batshit theory as long as its untestable

http://f.screensavers.com/OMS/img/407/matthewmoney_215.jpg

i think i agree with the point the writer is trying to make, but it's phrased really poorly, in that i have no idea what science disproving religion would entail. science can maybe disprove some aspects of some religions, like the factuality of some religious myths, but it cannot "disprove" religion as a whole

only if you go out of your way to find stuff that cant be disproved

yeah i'd leave that up to philosophy (xp)

anything that meaningfully defines religion is disprovable, otherwise it's just philosophy or social sciences

ya i think it's the unbruising thing. like hey dudes dont worry we're just trying to figure out the same stuff!

you might even look at it like we're just trying to unravel the mysteries of god's creation!

the whole concept of faith is based around the idea that even if someone "disproves" something you believe in, you still believe in it

something not yet explained scientifically must be attributed to a supernatural deity

wtf, I disagree with this entirely and where is it written that this is the case? If something has not yet been explained I believe it will eventually.

so uh good luck with that

i mean, is a claim like 'meditation can aid mental well-being' a religious one? i think thats verified by psychology & medical science. religious claims are magical by definition, otherwise they're part of the natural world and observable science

Of course science can't ultimately disprove the existence of God, as the realm he supposedly inhabits can just move further into the abstract and unquantifiable as science continues to debunk more and more of the specifics of religious beliefs. However, as has been said a million times by a million people before, this does not mean God's existence is a certainty.

religion likes to claim non-religious stuff for itself to gain credibility (see creationists whole 'we're the modern galileos!!' schtick) but in the end its only a religious belief if it's supernatural

the whole concept of faith is based around the idea that even if someone "disproves" something you believe in, you still believe in it

No that's blind stupidity, 'faith' is believing in something you have no proof of. Actually that maybe depends on what you mean by putting inverted commas round 'disproves'.

so are you arguing that science does not disprove religion?

xpost to and what

no, science disproves supernatural beliefs, in favor of natural ones

Science has disproved a large number of the specifics of various belief systems. It cannot disprove the central tenant of any of them, ie there is a supernatural entity (or entities) which created us and guides our lives.

(which I don't believe myself, by the way)

(Erm, there are unproven theories in science that are nonetheless accepted by large numbers of scientists)

if you have faith in a religious belief, and then someone provides you with evidence that that belief is untrue, and you stop holding that belief, then your faith is not very faithful. so having faith in something means believing in it even in the face of evidence against it

But faith shouldn't require proof or disproof in the first place, that's the point of faith! If you have absolute proof that a unicorn exists then you don't need to have faith in one, if you have absolute proof that a unicorn does exist then that's delusion, not faith.

(I don't believe that unicorns exist)

Sorry but this question is stupid.

Science can't disprove a lot of things that can't be proved in any other way,

AND?

My desk fan can't drive me to the cinema tonight

If you have absolute proof that a unicorn exists then you don't need to have faith in one, if you have absolute proof that a unicorn does exist then that's delusion, not faith

wouldn't having faith in something you know to be untrue qualify as delusion much more neatly than this example?

i think he made a typo, pretty sure the second "does" was supposed to be "doesn't," right?

anyway, if you need/want religion that badly then i guess you are gonna believe whatever you want to.

hello scientology.

there's no reason for religion to exist anymore, we should agree to can it for civics instead.

You can't have absolute proof a unicorn doesn't exist though. There might be one somewhere you didn't look. That's kind of the point.

Erm, yes, that was a typo. I agree with Darragh.

Most of the broad discussion about science/philosophy/religion is way too general and annoying.

Science can disprove theories about the natural world. Sometimes, this aggravates religious people who hold erroneous beliefs about the natural world, and who hold these beliefs to be essential to their religion.

Can science disprove religion? WTF does that mean?

nicely put. shut thread!

i think people who have faith in stuff thats socially accepted & harder to disprove are less crazy than those who have faith in stuff that's easy to disprove but that has nothing to do with whether the stuff they have faith in is actually true

Surely everyone here agrees that?

socially accepted stuff is still usually rong.

believing something isn't necessarily a great indicator of faith, i think believing in something when it's hard to do so or tested is faith.

believing in something crazy/stupid against all evidence, or without any evidence, is just crazy/stupid.

i mean, if you're a biblical literalist who thinks the earth is 6,000 years old, you're going against a volume of observed evidence. if you believe that the earth is 4 billion years old but that god invisibly guided its creation in an unseeable, immeasureable way, while that claim may be set up in a way that makes it harder to immediately disprove there's still no reason to believe it. believing the latter claim makes you less isolated than someone who believes the former, but the ultimate beliefs are equally false

most people put a lot of stock in their religious beliefs & youll never win them over by saying that the basic understanding of the physical universe contradicts everything that religion claims (aside from morality claims, which should be left to philosophy, but considering the authority of those claims is derived from a supernatural god i think science can brush those aside too), but science shouldnt be in the business of selling itself - you don't have an obligation to make it palatable to fundies by hedging on the big facts in the hopes that theyll see the truth about smaller ones

what about the (christian) religious belief that we should let justice roll down like the waters, and righteousness like a mighty stream? it's hard to see how the scientific method could "disprove" this, yet i don't really see that belief as very magical or outlandish

i mean, even just setting religion aside completely, can you prove that love exists? disprove it?

as a philosophical concept, sure

/psychological/sociological

haha i'm looking forward to it

xpost

im sort of weirded out by the idea of two big monolithic things called "science" and "religion" being given some degree of agency and purpose

http://www.biopsychiatry.com/lovengf.htm

All people hold irrational beliefs, or in the very least act on non-rational impulses. The limits of our capacity for understanding, combined with the limits of science (both practically and theoretically), will forever outline a vast, gaping hole of mystery.

I don't begrudge people their non-rational reactions to the mystery. I begrudge the literalists, be they dualists or materialists, because literalism ultimately means subjugation to human authority and doubt and skepticism lead us toward freedom and liberty.

this doesn't mean the object of love actually exists in any meaningful or verifiable sense outside the head of those affected

curious cat: why did the big bang happen?
priest: god did it
scientist: 'why' is not part of my remit
curious cat: hmph

Haha oh god on a msg board I used to post on about 7 years ago there was this one dude who was even more of a tireless rebutting one-point pony than Geir. He used to get into endless clusterfuck arguments where his point was that love categorically did not exist but proof of God's existence was in everything in the whole world. You have no idea how frustrated people got.

how did A Nairn feel about love?

i mean, if you're a biblical literalist who thinks the earth is 6,000 years old, you're going against a volume of observed evidence. if you believe that the earth is 4 billion years old but that god invisibly guided its creation in an unseeable, immeasureable way, while that claim may be set up in a way that makes it harder to immediately disprove there's still no reason to believe it. believing the latter claim makes you less isolated than someone who believes the former, but the ultimate beliefs are equally false

According to mathematics, "unprovable" <> "false". http://books.google.com/books?id=uV6Sp8gl3PcC&pg=PA253&lpg=PA253&dq=logic+unprovable+false&source=web&ots=HeWump0bpb&sig=xub5mneXRXLUt-kS-rsdH0Eas3A

this doesn't mean the object of love actually exists in any meaningful or verifiable sense outside the head of those affected

You can't verify anything about any object outside the head by studying the contents of the head.

I am not surprised to learn that feelings and sensations of love are organic. What does this actually prove or disprove?

Right now, there are cosmologists who claim that we are almost certainly momentary, free-floating, brain-like constellations of atoms floating in space and not actually the human beings on the planet Earth that we appear to be - all on the basis of thoroughly rational scientific reasoning:

Big Brain Theory: Have Cosmologists Lost Theirs?

If this is the best science can come up with, I don't think religion has much to worry about.

i mean, even just setting religion aside completely, can you prove that love exists? disprove it?

-- Tracer Hand, Wednesday, 23 January 2008 17:12 (5 minutes ago) Link

as a philosophical concept, sure

-- and what, Wednesday, 23 January 2008 17:15 (1 minute ago) Link

Bertrand Russell to thread

what makes you think that's "the best science can come up with"?

if Russell actually show up btw that will cast a lot of ethan's assumptions in a harsh light

That's not actually the best science can come up with though, is it?

ha xpost

Has science disproven the existence of unicorns yet?

Until I saw this thing on Animal Planet last week I thought narwhals were made up.

I think we worked out there might be unicorns on other planets, or maybe towards the earth's core.

that "floating brains" thing is as embarrassing and forgettable a scientific misstep as the ultraviolet catastrophe, and hopefully it will be consigned to the same dustbin of history. </sarcasm>

The earth's core ones kind of have drills rather than horns though.

it was just an example, but to be clear i didn't specifically mean romantic love i meant intense human affection in all its guises.. dostoyevsky-style love.

i just always get frustrated with literal discussions about religion.. and pro wrestling... where one side is arguing against the most bone-dumb literal proponents they can think of: i.e. "there are some people who believe they don't actually choreograph that shit!" or "there are some people who believe halloween is satanic!" and it's like yeah way to go, you just "proved" that there are a lot of dumb motherfuckers

the totalizing idea that one religion is True and all others are False is a relatively new one in human history (NB the idea that science is True and religion is False is even more recent) and could be argued to coincide with the rise of empire and the nation-state

bet!

it's 17:37... and i'm out

there are cosmologists who claim that we are almost certainly momentary, free-floating, brain-like constellations of atoms floating in space

That's just a bullshit pop-science dressing up of what is really a scientific problem, not a theory, and as much a philosophical problem as a scientific one (and one that I suspect isn't helped by scientists being shit at philosophy).

what makes you think that's "the best science can come up with"?

Well, it's an unsolved problem. If they had come up with better it would be solved, no?

Scientists are shit at philosophy. Journalists are shit at science. Thus, this crappy article.

recent ideas are bad now?

Yeah, stupid scientists can't even solve the mind/body problem. What a bunch of losers.

xxxpost

I don't really see how the Boltzmann brain problem is a philosophical problem, or how it depends on solving the mind-body problem. It seems to be a pretty clearly formulated scientific question to me.

I mean, it's a long-lasting philosophical quandry still being argued today, but

http://media.npr.org/programs/wesat/features/2003/aug/gestures/loser_140.jpg
Way to go, SCIENTIST

xpost

it's nothing to do with the mind-body problem. it's just occam's razor meets the anthropic principle - with added statistics!

Seriously, dudes, his article is shit, so arguing about "the best science can do" based on this article is shit. Furthermore, science is a long way away from explaining life, the universe, and everything, and dilettante discussions about "the best that science can do" are shit in general.

On what basis do we have faith that some day science will in fact explain all these mysteries, and that it will do so without recourse to any concept which is today considered religious?

No basis, but that's no reason for whining.

we don't have faith that science will explain all these mysteries, and we don't need to.

xpost hahaha better put

Science isn't an ethos or a dogma, it's a method of analysing the world in a meticulous manner that has so far turned out a lot of sound results.

i think that if next year the hubble telescope got a clear shot of god kickin' it out in deep space heaven, people of a scientific bent would believe in god. thats kind of the whole point.

its been a while since i read this, but i managed to google it:

Hilary Putnam, Mathematics, Matter and Method (Cambridge University Press, 1975), pp. xiii:

"I regard science as an important part of man's knowledge of reality; but there is a tradition with which I would not wish to be identified, which would say that scientific knowledge is all of man's knowledge. I do not believe that ethical statements are expressions of scientific knowledge; but neither do I agree that they are not knowledge at all. The idea that the concepts of truth, falsity, explanation, and even understanding are all concepts which belong exclusively to science sees to me to be a perversion"

"Science isn't an ethos or a dogma, it's a method of analysing the world in a meticulous manner that has so far turned out a lot of sound results."

as this thread illustrates it can be one or the other or both depending on the circumstances.

(circumstances was a poor choice of words, but i think you get my meaning)

The basic problem: how do we reconcile the second law of thermodynamics with the observed order of the universe?

Religious folks like some of my relatives: "We can't, therefore we must hold irrational beliefs."

Another variation: "Evolution can't be true because it hasn't been reconciled with the second law."

Basically, they say that god is both the engineer and the glue of the universe.

Some people, like me, react thusly: "That is a fascinating problem."

^^^^ not the same without the accompanying googly-eyed face

Just because certain religious beliefs of whatever stripe can't be definitively proven to be false doesn't actually stop them from being false.

And, of course, the fact that someone has faith in something or other being true has no bearing on whether that thing is actually true.

i think that if next year the hubble telescope got a clear shot of god kickin' it out in deep space heaven, people of a scientific bent would believe in god. thats kind of the whole point.

scientists are capable of being blinded by ideology just as everyone else

stone: if we are asking if something is true or false and cannot come up with an answer it might be the fault of the question we asked

scientists are capable of being blinded by ideology just as everyone else

I'll agree with that, but what does that mean to you?

^^^^ not the same without the accompanying googly-eyed face

-- HI DERE, Wednesday, January 23, 2008 12:08 PM (3 minutes ago) Bookmark Link

Yeah, I was looking for the it's a mystery ghost.

Any 'scientist' who bends, distorts and denies results in order to reach a pre-determined conclusion is not worthy of the name. Anyone who got first hand, irrefutable proof of god's existence and continued to deny it could not call themselves a scientist.

Don't you people have university dorm lounges to hang out in?

Scientists are capable of being blinded by ideology, sure, but that says nothing about science as a process for accumulating increasingly accurate predictions to help you predict the future. Science largely isn't interested in religion, because religion is all about setting up non-falsifiable conditions. And science doesn't even start to handle the sorts of questions that you might want to ask there.

hey, "irrefutable proof" isn't something that science talks about. scientific knowledge gets built up slowly on a set of minimal conditions that gives you the best possible predictions, based on the evidence you have available. leave irrefutable proof to the mathematicians

it seems like there are a number of different definitions of "science" and "religion" floating around on this thread

Essentially I'm agreeing with you, though I'm obviously not as up on the jargon. I'm not dissing science at all.

xpost

no shit. at this rate we'll never figure out whether robots can feel love

i thought thats what the thread was about, max

these threads are funny

funny like a spoon in the eye

can science prove a spoon in the eye?

what if it is a metaphorical spoon?

NO SPOON ONLY ZOD

http://artfiles.art.com/images/-/Terence-Stamp---General-Zod-Photograph-C12149516.jpeg

http://www.neowin.net/forum/style_emoticons/default/emot-iiam.gif

c'mon guys

if we are asking if something is true or false and cannot come up with an answer it might be the fault of the question we asked

-- artdamages, Wednesday, 23 January 2008 18:11 (Wednesday, 23 January 2008 18:11) Bookmark Link

Well, yeah. Quite obviously. But the Law of the Excluded Middle also has a lot to answer for too.

can science prove a spoon in the eye?

http://www.aolcdn.com/music-photos/david-bowie-spinal-tap-215.jpg

That proves nothing!!!

science is creationist, hyped up magic-- as we can see, without religion (consciousness of the unconscious and control of the subconscious) it is being subverted by people who don't faithfully conserve. the ultimate religion is performing miracles, e.g. writing a function that transcends oil while most unreligious scientists are too specialized and merely polluting what they're trying to make more luxurious. it needs jurists and centralized power or science will ultimately be fought for by the superrich in order to preserve themselves during the dark ages. not to get too fire and brimstone.

I'm sure I can find a translation of that into

arms OTM

http://www.blakeneymanor.com/images/carryon/shock.jpg

..English, somewhere.

religion without science is blind, science without religion is lame. both sides need serious centralized moderation

'cos centralisation is alwaysthe best way to go.

WOULD SCIENCE CARRY YOU ACROSS THE SAND WHERE ARE SCIENCES FOOTPRINTS?!?!

oh wait, never mind, i liked it better when it was gibberish.

the article is crap, but I have a question for y'all...
what would happen to all the religious types if it WAS proven absolutely that god does not exist and religion was a scam?

They would probably be upset.

good question

http://www.kellogg.northwestern.edu/student/ksa/ksasite/images/thinking_man.jpg

guys in an effort to resolve this matter i am going to consult the wu-tang manual. i will report back later.

what would happen to all the religious types if it WAS proven absolutely that god does not exist

this is a meaningless question - can't prove a negative

thanks for the "skoolin'" Shakey. :^/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wbD5BNTcJuc

Would the religious world erupt into madness?

I think that already happened some thousands of ears ago.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qj2bdAMX9Qo

WHAT IF.... it was proved that god doesnt exist????? HUH?????? what then, CHRISTIANS?!?

religion is a systematized set of moral and ethical precepts frequently governed by belief in a unifying myth or set of parables. the myth/parables are constantly shifting in their relation to truth and scientific verifiability: eroding in some places and banking in others. if the unifying "god" ground beneath were suddenly carpetbombed to oblivion, the religion would exist pretty much as it always had except use the stories explicitly as moral tales and parables, and not as - hah - catholic truth.

max otm

It's the motion of the ocean, not the size of the boat <wicked grin>

what would happen to all the science types if it WAS proven absolutely that god does exist and science was a scam?

what would happen to all the scientific types if it WAS proven absolutely that god exists? Would they all just go CRAZY??? HUH?? Wouldn't that be INSANE??

^^^sarcasm

arrgh x-post

no kidding, shakey mo.

A Ω, baby, A Ω.

lolz

heh heh heh

Hubble telescope image:

http://www.lawtonka.com/Busey.jpeg

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/vol317/issue5843/images/large/317_1360_F2.jpeg

plz to note humans beaten by chimps in causality.

I haven't read all this, but Ethan -- the kind of disentangling you're seeing up there can be read as an "unbruising," sure, but it's also kind of a big "step off," if you read it from the other direction. I mean, this is an impulse that is partly conciliatory but is basically just shooing religion away. You say: okay, actually religion is about something other and deeper than questions of planetary motion, biological evolution, and so on. You say: religion is a matter of spirit and faith and complicated important stuff that has nothing to do with how the physical universe actually works, which is what science is interested in.

And in one sense that sounds flattering, because you're suggesting there's some whole other level religion is operating on. But in another sense it's kinda saying "we happily concede to you the mystical realm of abstract notions like 'spirit' and 'soul' and other metaphysical stuff that is of no fucking use to us; now please go content yourselves over there and do not bother us while we figure actual things out."

(Which is pretty much what goes on in the brains of normal religious scientists, so far as I can tell: they work on science like anyone else, and do not imagine god as explaining everything not yet explained by science; and their religion informs their approach to more abstract human matters.)

but what about this:

no, science disproves supernatural beliefs, in favor of natural ones

-- and what, Wednesday, January 23, 2008 4:29 PM (2 hours ago) Bookmark Link

if you had read all of this, you'd have resorted to jpegs by now too. xpost

ethan always uses all these rhetorical tricks - i assume on purpose - which make any actual discussion difficult (not that these threads wouldn't devolve into nonsense and jpgs anyway)

xpost!

xpost - The word "supernatural" is not specific enough in there.

ESP, werewolves = a concrete "supernatural" belief science can engage with

human spirit & purpose = abstract notions that I guess you can call "supernatural," but do not have any concrete connection with the physical world, and are abstracted pretty much entirely beyond the bailiwick of science (which does not make them any less important to people)

I know that rubs weirdly against the etymology of "supernatural"

but he is deliberately confusing the kind of supernatural beliefs easily disproved by science w/the sort of big questions that can't be answered (which the original article stated are beyond the domain of science)

here posting from an illegal church of behavioralism speak-easy.

isn't religion supposed to be the excisition of insanity

not that i can Know other people's intentions (xpost)

http://media.npr.org/programs/wesat/features/2003/aug/gestures/loser_140.jpg
LOL, WEREWOLVES PWND BY SCIENTISTS

he is deliberately confusing the kind of supernatural beliefs easily disproved by science w/the sort of big questions that can't be answered

That's what I just said, right?

I probably should have read the thread

weird that there ultimately religion is made up of these big abstractions when saints, mystics, etc all describe finding God or their Buddha or whatever in the ordinary

or not weird since i am reading this:
http://cdn.harpercollins.com/harperimages/isbn/large/3/9780062511713.jpg

Haha why do you assume a large gulf between ordinary experience and big abstractions? Ordinary experience is full of HUGE abstractions

nabisco you said 'supernatural' wasn't being specific enough and i said ethan was purposefully confusing things (or else he is confused, but i am giving him the benefit of the doubt)

I think nabsico's pointing in the right direction here, that the real problem is a failure to acknowledge/deliberate obscuring of the fact that there are things (concepts/ideas/patterns of thought/whatever) that are beyond the bounds of empirical science and which science cannot and does not address. Science is a method for predicting physical phenomenon. It has limits.

x-post

i was writing in response to your post nabisco specifically "re abstracted pretty much entirely beyond the bailiwick of science"

Two points I need to make here:

1. I AM NOT RELIGIOUS

2. Science deals in support of hypotheses and theories, not proof. Scientists will colloquially talk in terms of proof, but (in my experience) formal research doesn't and shouldn't claim to prove or disprove anything.

Religion is convenient for explaining past experiences, but is terrible at making predictions about the world.

"God spared me from death when I jumped off that cliff."

"Will God save me from dying when I jump off this cliff?"

The scientific method is more useful for formulating predictions.

anyone read this:
http://books.google.com/books?id=cxYFw3NkPMoC&printsec=frontcover&img=1&zoom=1&sig=XYHojlLp8jfhjoh0o75tKM5hlxA

Yes, "supernatural" was not specific enough in that it was deliberately conflating those two things

I think the main point I was going for up there is this: conceding that certain matters of spirit/faith are outside the whole framework of science does not necessarily involve conceding that said matters are meaningful, necessary, or important. It can also mean, in kind of a back-handed way, that if you're concerned with such matters, fine, go be concerned with them, knock yourself out; they have no real relationship with science, so we have nothing to resolve here.

i wish people on both sides could agree to that!

i don't, the intersection of science and religion is interesting

though i would say that, i double-majored in psychology and religion

like 400 years ago

LOL U RASPUTIN

The intersection of science and religion will probably always be well tended by people who care about it, though; it's inevitable. That kind of separation strikes me as the current method for not having general head-bumping about it. It's the way of saying science and religion in the abstract aren't a binary, and have different purviews; the border's still worth exploring in a bit more detail

PHWOAR LOOK AT THE BORDER BETWEEN THOSE PURVIEWS

Part of the problem is defining religion. Are we talking about wishy-washy spiritualism? Are we talking about some sort of practical philosophy? Are we talking about an authoritative text about life, the universe, and everything?

Sometimes religious beliefs are contradicted by science.

What are the religious sources of knowledge? It's either an external authority, like a text or a leader or a "revelation", or it's an a priori mystical knowledge. It may be purportedly experiential, but it's not empirical and it's not rational.

http://thethreattoreason.blogspot.com/

^^^^ this guy, Dan Hind, just had a great editorial in New Scientist

also YOU ARE ALL PLAYING RIGHT INTO JARVIK'S HANDS

I'm going to have a heart attack now?

JARVIK IZ WATCHIN US FROM A DISTANCE

WITH GOAT EYES

i. a richards to thread: no, it doesn't, they concern different things. EXCEPT many religious people don't understand this either...

I have a much more pressing question than "religion vs science":

HAS ANYONE EVER SEEN BETTE MIDDLER AND JARVIK IN THE SAME ROOM AT THE SAME TIME???????

like anyone will stay in a room with bette midler

Is there a jarvik who is not the heart dude, or is there some inside joek about the heart dude?

^^^^ this guy, Dan Hind, just had a great editorial in New Scientist

I stopped reading at the Star Wars anecdote, sorry

xpost
there is an inside joek about the heart dude
i dont remember what it is, though

the inside joke is that jarvik is no joke he is watching us, he is watching us, he is watching us, from a distance

http://a592.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images01/79/l_bb2a64ef4430bfe6aeaf85d449375a7f.jpg

Sometimes religious beliefs are contradicted by science.

i have yet to see valid scientific fact contradicted by religion, however.

apart from christ on that toast tha one time, but that was sheer pot luck i reckon.

nabisco, for fucks sake, i don't want to live in some damned future where polemic cracker bullshit hasn't been resolved fully and permanently. i should know all of math, all the languages, etc, but capitalist creationist fuckmared my whole business because my parents had to work real hard to perpetuate a cycle of corpocratic nonsense that everyone's brainwashed into not realizing the world is a unified subject that shares thought

AGENT OF JARVIK

I don't know what that means or why my name precedes it

that's the way arms spells "OTM"

issues, real issues.

possibly whole volumes.

hey!! you fuckmared my whole business!!

for fucks sake, i don't want to live in some damned future where polemic cracker bullshit hasn't been resolved fully and permanently. i should know all of math, all the languages, etc, but capitalist

sob...changeable usernames RIP

We don't discussfuckmare business at the table.

As for myself, I believe that science has proved that there has to be a creator (The best mathematicians, physicists, biologists, astronomers,etc all admit they cannot explain how the DNA data gets into each cell/gene and can only be put there by intelligent design. But a campaign of disinformation from the atheist scientific communtity was exposed on British TV (I have the documentary), that proves that even the atheists admitted in secret scientific unpublished journals that all organic life in the universe had to come from a designer creator, and cannot appear randomly. The documentary exposed these findings and carried the atheist scientists through to their final statement and conclusion (which was pretty weak) that all artificial intelligence can appear randomly, but they admit that all organic life has to have a creator. THAT WAS THE COVER UP! THIS WAS EXPOSED AND THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY WERE INFILTRATED BY OCCULT SECRET SOCIETIES AND PAID TO NOT PUBLISH THEIR FINDINGS. (MOSTLY HIGH RANKING FREEMASONS, ROSICRUCIANS, ORDER TEMPLAR ORIENTALIS,ETC). tHE DOCUMENTARY PART 2 STATES THAT 90% OF THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY DO NOT BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION BUT AGREE WITH CHRISTIANS SCIENTISTS THAT NATURAL SELECTION IS A CORRECT THESIS, BUT THEY CANNOT ADMIT THIS, BECAUSE THEIR FUNDS WILL BE STOPPED BY POWERFUL INSTITUTES CONTROLLED BY THESE OCCULT FREEMASONS/BUSINESSMEN WHO OWN MULTINATIONAL CORPORATIONS

ye shall know the truth, and the truth will be in all caps

i would buy one of those NIV bibles if instead of red print they promised christs words in all caps like tim @ kfc.edu

if i had any talent w/ that sort of thing, i'd be really tempted to whip up a version of the Lord's Prayer in tim @ kfc. edu language.

hahaha i like how that starts out at least semi, uh, not reasonable, but calmly outlining a POV and then leaps into frothy-mouthed screaming. well done crazy person

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article5705331.ece

Vatican buries the hatchet with Charles Darwin
Richard Owen in Rome

The Vatican has admitted that Charles Darwin was on the right track when he claimed that Man descended from apes.

A leading official declared yesterday that Darwin’s theory of evolution was compatible with Christian faith, and could even be traced to St Augustine and St Thomas Aquinas. “In fact, what we mean by evolution is the world as created by God,” said Archbishop Gianfranco Ravasi, head of the Pontifical Council for Culture. The Vatican also dealt the final blow to speculation that Pope Benedict XVI might be prepared to endorse the theory of Intelligent Design, whose advocates credit a “higher power” for the complexities of life.

Organisers of a papal-backed conference next month marking the 150th anniversary of Darwin’s On the Origin of Species said that at first it had even been proposed to ban Intelligent Design from the event, as “poor theology and poor science”. Intelligent Design would be discussed at the fringes of the conference at the Pontifical Gregorian University, but merely as a “cultural phenomenon”, rather than a scientific or theological issue, organisers said.

The conference is seen as a landmark in relations between faith and science. Three years ago advocates of Intelligent Design seized on the Pope’s reference to an “intelligent project” as proof that he favoured their views.

The teaching of evolution as fact vs a theory of looking at things is propaganda and bad science thru and thru. The proof is in the fossil record, the record does not support millions of years. This is such a good example of good vs evil. Evolutionists consider creationist evil and vise versa. The one thing I know firsthand is, creationist study all the scientific literature and consider its relevance and accuracy, the evolutionists will not even consider reading the creationists research journals. There may be some that are closeted readers, etc. but most do not. Also, if creationism is not such a threat to their very existence, why can one be fired for NOT believing in evolution. One cannot work at Woods Hole if you do not explicitly say you believe in evolution as the best and only argument for how we all got here as we are today. That is insane and totally negates the “science” they do there. And Woods Hole is a big place with alot of research money both from private and govt sources. It is a travesty what is going on. Everyone reading this needs to make a trip and tour the Creation Museum, your eyes will be opened, unless you have them shut over with duct tape already. True science and true scientists look at everything and consider everything, they DO NOT sensor! Most if not all of the most important scientists we know of in the past hundreds of years since the enlightenment, all believed in a super power. Even Darwin had doubts about his theory all of his life. He dissed God in a way after losing his child. He was hurt and emotionally bruised. Out of this came a set of ideas that we now consider fact! Isn’t that wonderful. Full Stop.

i'm a little alarmed by the number of apparent fundies in my med school class

darwin dissed god

the evolutionists will not even consider reading the creationists research journals

These things exist? I thought the Bible was the only creationist research journal.

And they don't read it. Even though it's peer reviewed (by The Son and The Holy Ghost).

said billions of times, but bears repeating: why do dummy creationists put so much stock in the fossil record??? that is, is there a molecular biologist out there that seriously aims creationism?

i'm a little alarmed by the number of apparent fundies in my med school class

yeah um me too...

the evolutionists will not even consider reading the creationists research journals

These things exist? I thought the Bible was the only creationist research journal.

― WmC, Thursday, 12 February 2009 15:30 (8 minutes ago) Bookmark

start here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_science and go on from there. not exactly the most rigorous "science", but it is kinda fascinating.

it's basically bible fanfic - "noah had dinosaurs on the ark! man lived 1000 years because there was more oxygen in the atomosphere!"

I used to believe that stuff. That we didn't really know why people lived longer in Bible times but maybe it was because they were genetically closer to the pure Created state, DNA not yet corrupted (by what??).

oh man that link is liable to destroy any of today's productivity

xp my aunt went through a creationist phase. she claimed dinosaurs died out because they couldn't fit on the Ark.

The other day my roommate said she can't believe in God because if there was one, we would've been intelligently designed, and clearly we aren't. Also, deer would not die in wildfires. It is a good point. Unfortunately, my response to that is a totally sympathetic but really unhelpful "i see your point, but i don't think we can realistically second guess the laws of physics, evolution, and the history of the natural world." I don't mean rational questioning is BAD, just that I don't think we can imagine a good standard of how the world would work without its current problems (problems = natural evils, in this context, as opposed to moral evils).

DNA not yet corrupted (by what??)

My Satan.

I mean by Satan.

that is, is there a molecular biologist out there that seriously aims creationism?

― i like to fart and i am crazy (gbx), Thursday, February 12, 2009 3:32 PM (4 hours ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

this doofus:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Behe

xp Suuuure you do.

My Satan.

Starring Chris Makepeace and Satan.

Satan as himself.

http://ldolphin.org/wmwilliams.html

Jersey's own Rev William A Williams can argue against Evolution in 50 ways.

zzz aren't Chick tracts free, at least?