for all you atheists out there...

[Tim]

My views when it comes to Religion vs Science are...

Religion (or philosophy) and science answer distinctly different questions about the world around us. Religion is designed to have an answer for "Why?"

Why are we here? Why do we die? Why do we live? Why should we be nice to our neighbors? Why shouldn't we steal? Why shouldn't we kill? Why was I born?

However, every time (and I do mean EVERY time) religion has attempted to answer science's question, it has been proven wrong. Science's question is "How?"

How does the world work? How did we get here? How is the earth shaped? How does the solar system work? How do we procreate? How does the world around us work?

When religion mixes its question with science's question, we get "Intelligent Design" (previously "Creationism" and previously "Genesis"). It's not science, because it's religion, and as religion, it is not equipped to handle the question: "How?"

It's non-science, and it should be taught in church, at home, or at the worst, in a theology class as an elective.

 

[All Else Failed]

My views when it comes to Religion vs Science are...

Religion (or philosophy) and science answer distinctly different questions about the world around us. Religion is designed to have an answer for "Why?"

Why are we here? Why do we die? Why do we live? Why should we be nice to our neighbors? Why shouldn't we steal? Why shouldn't we kill? Why was I born?

However, every time (and I do mean EVERY time) religion has attempted to answer science's question, it has been proven wrong. Science's question is "How?"

How does the world work? How did we get here? How is the earth shaped? How does the solar system work? How do we procreate? How does the world around us work?

When religion mixes its question with science's question, we get "Intelligent Design" (previously "Creationism" and previously "Genesis"). It's not science, because it's religion, and as religion, it is not equipped to handle the question: "How?"

It's non-science, and it should be taught in church, at home, or at the worst, in a theology class as an elective.

100% agreed.

IF YOU HAVE TO teach religion in school, then make it a optional class and have it presented in a non biased way. It should be a history of religion too, not the teaching of it. JUST THE FACTS, if you want to pray and sing psalms go to church.

 

[Magic P]

This is my last post on this debate. Good luck everyone.

 

[dt3]

I agree with AEF and Tim, both posts are very well-said.

 

[All Else Failed]

YouTube - Rational Response Squad takes on Christians on ABC


OWNED

 

[dt3]

Wow, nice video.

 

[memento_mori]

My views when it comes to Religion vs Science are...

Religion (or philosophy) and science answer distinctly different questions about the world around us. Religion is designed to have an answer for "Why?"

Why are we here? Why do we die? Why do we live? Why should we be nice to our neighbors? Why shouldn't we steal? Why shouldn't we kill? Why was I born?

However, every time (and I do mean EVERY time) religion has attempted to answer science's question, it has been proven wrong. Science's question is "How?"

How does the world work? How did we get here? How is the earth shaped? How does the solar system work? How do we procreate? How does the world around us work?

When religion mixes its question with science's question, we get "Intelligent Design" (previously "Creationism" and previously "Genesis"). It's not science, because it's religion, and as religion, it is not equipped to handle the question: "How?"

It's non-science, and it should be taught in church, at home, or at the worst, in a theology class as an elective.

you're like the guy in the bear vs shark debates that goes 'what if we have a bear HOLDING a shark? he'll be an unstoppable brute force!'

 

[memento_mori]

shark would definitely win btw

 

[IntruderLS1]

My views when it comes to Religion vs Science are...

Religion (or philosophy) and science answer distinctly different questions about the world around us. Religion is designed to have an answer for "Why?"

Why are we here? Why do we die? Why do we live? Why should we be nice to our neighbors? Why shouldn't we steal? Why shouldn't we kill? Why was I born?

However, every time (and I do mean EVERY time) religion has attempted to answer science's question, it has been proven wrong. Science's question is "How?"

How does the world work? How did we get here? How is the earth shaped? How does the solar system work? How do we procreate? How does the world around us work?

When religion mixes its question with science's question, we get "Intelligent Design" (previously "Creationism" and previously "Genesis"). It's not science, because it's religion, and as religion, it is not equipped to handle the question: "How?"

It's non-science, and it should be taught in church, at home, or at the worst, in a theology class as an elective.

Tried to rep ya, but it won't take for some reason. If you have a blank one come through, it was me.

Great post Tim. The only thing I would add to that, would be that the beginning cannot be explained by either, and as such, they should either not be taught, or both be taught equally. i.e. "There are two major thoughts on the origins of the universe... etc etc etc..."

And the only thing I disagree with is the proven wrong part. The Bible has not been prooven wrong that I'm aware of (it makes very few scientific claims anyway). The most visually appealing of which, is found in its oldest book, which discribes the Earth as a globe floating in space.

 

[All Else Failed]

Tried to rep ya, but it won't take for some reason. If you have a blank one come through, it was me.

Great post Tim. The only thing I would add to that, would be that the beginning cannot be explained by either, and as such, they should either not be taught, or both be taught equally. i.e. "There are two major thoughts on the origins of the universe... etc etc etc..."

And the only thing I disagree with is the proven wrong part. The Bible has not been prooven wrong that I'm aware of (it makes very few scientific claims anyway). The most visually appealing of which, is found in its oldest book, which discribes the Earth as a globe floating in space.

There's a problem with that. One side has facts, and one side doesn't. Creationism IS NOT science.


What do you mean by "proven wrong"? Because its pretty much generally excepted amongst educated circles that most of it is pure myth...

 

[Peter Parka]

Personally I've looked greatly into both sides of the arguenment and see flaws in them both. If either was 100% fact then this debate here wouldn't be going on. Its great we can all debate about this but untill either is a proven fact they should both be kept out of the classroom IMO.

 

[All Else Failed]

Personally I've looked greatly into both sides of the arguenment and see flaws in them both. If either was 100% fact then this debate here wouldn't be going on. Its great we can all debate about this but untill either is a proven fact they should both be kept out of the classroom IMO.

Which one is more probably though? The one with facts behind it.

 

[Peter Parka]

I dont care which is most probably, both are theories

 

[All Else Failed]

I dont care which is most probably, both are theories

Yeah but you have to understand that one has mountains of evidence and one does not.

 

[Peter Parka]

Not really, both have lots of flaws

 

[All Else Failed]

Not really, both have lots of flaws

Both have flaws, of course. Although like I said before, one is supported by various evidence and one has practically none. I'll take the one that has been tested, documented and supported by people who know their stuff rather than one that is not.

 

[Magic P]

Both have flaws, of course. Although like I said before, one is supported by various evidence and one has practically none. I'll take the one that has been tested, documented and supported by people who know their stuff rather than one that is not.

you completely rejected the other point of view. you are bias. I don't wanna get personal but hey, if you wanna know what you are talking about, you gotta do research on both sides, cuz otherwise, you won't even know what you are for and against. Your point would just be a hear-say.

 

[Magic P]

Why can't we just all admit that we don't know everything and lets just choose what's available to believe for whatever reasons and respect each other and just leave it like that?

 

[All Else Failed]

you completely rejected the other point of view. you are bias. I don't wanna get personal but hey, if you wanna know what you are talking about, you gotta do research on both sides, cuz otherwise, you won't even know what you are for and against. Your point would just be a hear-say.

lol.


Ok, yeah I am biased. You can't help but be biased when one theory has more evidence than the other. I have research creationism, and it provides no real evidence what so ever.

I challenge you to show me some evidence of the genesis account to be true.

 

[All Else Failed]

Why can't we just all admit that we don't know everything and lets just choose what's available to believe for whatever reasons and respect each other and just leave it like that?

We do know some things, and to say we don't "know anything" is denying evidence.


I just do not understand why some of you say "wellll we shouldn't push either theory since there's holes in both of them". Um, ONE THEORY HAS MOUNTAINS OF EVIDENCE. THE OTHER HAS NONE WHATSOEVER. Yes, there will always be certain questions that evolution will still have to answer, but you know what? Those questions keep getting smaller and smaller with each generation when we discover new thing. Just look at all the progress and evidence such as thousands of transitional fossils we have gained since Darwin even stated his theory! Thins like these take time. But until then, how about we go with the one that has been used by most intelligent people everywhere?