Creationist designers?
- Started
- Last post
- 77 Responses
- Horp0
Religion versus science
How did that ever come to be?
Two camps, not opposed in general terms, each housing people with fundamental beliefs that desire to cancel out the binary opposite in the other camp. Both factions claiming to have the answers, neither faction able to cite anything more than theory as proof.Both actually seeking the exact same thing, that answers all the questions, but one has named it from the book science, and defined it by a set of theoretical parameters that are limited by the scientific vocabulary at hand, the other had named it from the book of religion, and defined it by a set of theoretcial parameters that are limited by the religious vocabulary at hand.
Two speed boats, filled with fervent believers, both heading in a straight line for the same port but swearing the other is lost at sea in a boat full of holes.
- Science isn't just theory as proof. It has answered many of the mysteries in the bible. And it continues to do so daily.monospaced
- I can't think of a single bible mystery that science has answered, but then, I'm not a big bible reader, or science follower.Horp
- Ordinary, ordinary guy, afro-philipino...ave... kind of guy.Horp
- average, not ave.
Since switching to PCs, I've noticed it tends to disregard half of a word for no apparent reason.Horp - Erm, science has proof that it understands the world and has answers, 'theory' in the scientific sense has a different meaning to what you thinkBaskerviIle
- don't believe in the scientific method? Then stop using your PC, your TV, medicine etcBaskerviIle
- Bible mystery solved: it's impossible to build a boat big enough to hold two of every speciesmonospaced
- another: the earth is round and not the center of the universemonospaced
- another: women have the same number of ribs as menmonospaced
- lol, sorry, this is lamemonospaced
- another: immaculate conception is impossiblemonospaced
- the size of the universe and its age: detailed by sciencemonospaced
- Okay okay, I'll sit back down hahahaHorp
- vaxorcist0
but are they intelligent?
- gramme0
Present. I lean toward the old-earth view of creationism (as opposed to the idea that the world is between 7,000 and 10,000 years old).
- http://en.wikipedia.…utopian
- How can you ignore certain bits and pieces of the holy book to suit your own beliefs?CanHasQBN
- Surely if you feel some parts of it are wrong, then you must question the entire validity of the book.CanHasQBN
- I don't ignore it. The word "days' as used in the original Hebrew can also mean an age, a large chunk of time.gramme
- Cool. So pretty much, you can bend anything in that book to suit your beliefs. Sounds reliable!!CanHasQBN
- melq0
That's because die-hard atheists are equally as annoying as die-hard theists.
In between, where the majority of people are, is a well-balanced middle ground. Just as most non-believers daily practice good will and love towards those around them with following some predisposed doctrine, most believers are fervent consumers of scientific knowledge.
They're just polite enough to shut the fuck up about it.
- melq0
That's because die-hard atheists are equally as annoying as die-hard theists.
In between, where the majority of people are, is a well-balanced middle ground. Just as most non-believers daily practice good will and love towards those around them with following some predisposed doctrine, most believers are fervent consumers of scientific knowledge.
They're just polite enough to shut the fuck up about it.
- meffid0
Oh, please fuck up.
- Horp0
True.
As for me... I'm probably the most doubtful atheist on the planet. I really have no faith at all in my lack of conviction. I'm almost permanently poised in anticipation of being proved at least partly wrong.
One thing I do know is that there's only one thing more annoying than a tub-thumping delusional Christian extremist, and that's Richard Dawking.
- Come join us ↓ORAZAL
- Piffle. You just don't want to offend somebody. You are an atheist - you doubt. What about Dawkins annoys you ?mikotondria3
- Dawkins is my hero.monospaced
- randommail0
I particularly like the alien/gods backstory from Assassin's Creed.
- Didn't Lovecraft do that first, and with more style & angst?TheBlueOne
- fyoucher10
From monkeys and frogs?
- proof that chimps are indeed our ancestorssine
- So are frogs.mikotondria3
- froglightrandommail
- What has been seen...pig
- <yepsine
- classic!omg
- @miko, frogs are not our ancestorsmonospaced
- TheBlueOne0
"Religion versus science How did that ever come to be?"
- HorpWell if anyone is even the least bit familiar with the development of science, it's blatantly obvious that the problem really is a primate hierarchy who has the most peanuts one.
Newton, Bacon et. al. at the origins of what we would consider modern science were not out to "invent" science. They were on a very serious religious quest. Alot of Newton's stuff was whitewashed before publication. What was going on in the heads of these guys was to use this new "scientific approach" to discover the mind of God. It was an alternate to the evil alchemist tradition, which was seeking to bend nature against God's Will, where Science was seeking to simply discover God's Mechanism's. Science was a religious quest from the very beginning.
The problem was that it challenged authority, in essence teh Church. For one example we can call up the whole Galileo earth revolves around the Sun thing. The Church claimed to have the lock on all knowledge, and these young religious heretics were claiming they had an insight into how God ordered the Universe, and well, that's simply not allowed.
Science was a religious quest to begin with, but one that challenged the Church's lock on doctrine and explanation. There is simply no reason that science cannot be have a religious aspect - which is EXACTLY why wherever power in authority is vested in a religious view has issues with science. It has no real issue with if God set up evolution or how physics works really - it's all about authority. It's a civil war, and hence long, bloody and generally stupid about fractional issues that anyone who steps outside of the debate shakes their head at the sheer stupidity of it.
Which oddly enough is a very distinctly primate tribal thing.
- I'd rec digging up a used copy of this book: http://www.amazon.co…TheBlueOne
- You probably just gave me a really good recommendation there TBO, but when I see books with typefaces....Horp
- like that on the cover, some vestigial aspect of my former design life twinges and I can't proceed.Horp
- (See also "AVATAR" and the cafe signage of Glastonbury High Street)Horp
- It was published in the 80's Horp. SO blame the typeface on the 80's.TheBlueOne
- This idea assumes science began with christianityaaux
- Modern science did, built on ancient Greek and some Arab foundations mostly.TheBlueOne
- i love you bri, always so eloquent... spot onmonospaced
- Jimbo820
Personally I'm a fan of The Book of Revelations.
- Mr_Mxyzptlk0
*Hoots, flaps gentitals at TBO
- *Shrieks, flings a pooMr_Mxyzptlk
- *evolves, flings mustard gas canister*detritus
- *god alters course of poo because I bleieveTheBlueOne
- GeorgesII1
don't you fuckn hate when people call you a troll,
yet everyone knows troll don't exist because they didn't accept jesus in their lives and got sent to hell with all the other fairies and ungodly creatures,
enough is enough people, please have some respect for me and others like me...
my 2cts
- fadein110
one relies on faith, the other relies on proof.
- I thought you said "The other relies on poofs"Horp
- "Proof" does not mean what you think it does, in scientific terms.TheBlueOne
- Proof ⧣ Truth. Merely the best description of observed phenomenon subject to new informationTheBlueOne
- Flop-wristed scientists, H.O.R.P.?detritus