[Good bloke]

(Original post by Safiyyah95)
Can you please explain how? I hope you don't think I'm trying to be rude or anything.

Beauase scientists accept nothing without supporting, measurable, repeatable evidence. Faith is the antithesis of this process.

[KingMessi]

(Original post by Safiyyah95)
I don't see why there has to be a conflict between Science and Religion. I think they go hand in hand.

How so?

[Hypocrism]

(Original post by KingMessi)
How so?

He will reply with the god of the gaps argument, so god created science and now just lets science do everything without interfering

I ask people like him, what will happen when we have a perfect understanding of science, and God is restricted to the singularity of creation?

[Gofre]

(Original post by Safiyyah95)
I don't see why there has to be a conflict between Science and Religion. I think they go hand in hand.

So long as religions are willing to change their position on any scientific issue, then I agree, there is no conflict. That isn't always the case, however.

[Hype en Ecosse]

(Original post by Gofre)
So long as religions are willing to change their position on any scientific issue, then I agree, there is no conflict. That isn't always the case, however.

I wouldn't quite say go hand-in-hand. But they can peacefully coexist if the above is satisfied.

[Retrodiction]

(Original post by Safiyyah95)
Why can't the Big Bang and Evolution just be God's means of creating the world. If God existed, would we really be able to comprehend His power? Him being All-Powerful and all?

Is this any reason to believe in god, though? I could easily ascribe the quality of 'being unable to be known/comprehended' to any mythical creature - this doesn't throw the nonexistence of said mythical creature into question.

[Llamageddon]

(Original post by Hype en Ecosse)
I wouldn't quite say go hand-in-hand. But they can peacefully coexist if the above is satisfied.

In the same way that the appendix coexists with the large intestine.

[Llamageddon]

I think a lot of people miss the point when they talk about religion being incompatible with science. The scientific method is merely a method by which knowledge is discovered. Religion doesn't contradict the scientific method but merely fails to be verified by it.

What aspects of religion do contradict are facts we have arrived at through using the scientific method. Being a creationist isn't incompatible with science but more incompatible with being correct

[Gofre]

(Original post by Llamageddon)
What aspects of religion do contradict are facts we have arrived at through using the scientific method. Being a creationist isn't incompatible with science but more incompatible with being correct

I believe that when most people talk about science in this regard they are referring to the body of facts obtained through the process of the scientific method, rather than the method itself.

[Hype en Ecosse]

(Original post by Llamageddon)
In the same way that the appendix coexists with the large intestine.

Exactly like that. If you do things the way the appendix wants, it's fine. But if you don't, it'll blow itself up and kill you.

[Safiyyah95]

(Original post by Retrodiction)
Is this any reason to believe in god, though? I could easily ascribe the quality of 'being unable to be known/comprehended' to any mythical creature - this doesn't throw the nonexistence of said mythical creature into question.

No, that on it's own is not a reason to believe in God. And I didn't say it was. What I was saying is, you can't tell me that God doesn't exist just because of Evolution and the Big Bang.

[Gofre]

(Original post by Safiyyah95)
No, that on it's own is not a reason to believe in God. And I didn't say it was. What I was saying is, you can't tell me that God doesn't exist just because of Evolution and the Big Bang.

Nobody ever said it was. Only the most remedial of arguments will make the claim that evolution invalidates the notion of god.

[Safiyyah95]

(Original post by Gofre)
So long as religions are willing to change their position on any scientific issue, then I agree, there is no conflict. That isn't always the case, however.

I agree with that. But what people have to realise is that all religions are different. And sometimes the followers of that religion don't know anything about their religion and then they make silly arguments. But yeah, you're right.

[Ryan_94]

I have a question about evolution in general.

Muscles have the ability to grow (hypertrophy) to keep up with physical demands. This feature is found in most animals - birds, fish, rodents, humans, etc.

The fact that this specific feature is found in everything that has muscles, does that mean - in evolutionary terms - that the ability to increase muscle mass was present in all the above animals' common ancestor?

[G8D]

(Original post by Ryan_94)
I have a question about evolution in general.

Muscles have the ability to grow (hypertrophy) to keep up with physical demands. This feature is found in most animals - birds, fish, rodents, humans, etc.

The fact that this specific feature is found in everything that has muscles, does that mean - in evolutionary terms - that the ability to increase muscle mass was present in all the above animals' common ancestor?

It could mean that. But also see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convergent_evolution

[omgpop4real]

Is evolution compatible any particular religious doctrine? I don't think so.
The thing about religions is, as it turns out they are quite well defined. They have doctrines and principles and beliefs, and these are laid down in a text (usually, I suppose).
Now consider a legal contract, say for example a tenancy agreement. I want to buy a house, it looks pretty and it's comfortable. But the contract, when I read it, is ridiculous - it's asking of me that I do all sorts of crazy things that I don't want to do if I have the house. Now then imagine that, on the grounds of the ridiculous conditions required, I say "No, I do not wish to sign this contract because it is so ridiculous.". But then I go and park myself in the house anyway and set myself up a nice little pad. Legally, would I considered to be the rightful owner of this property? No, I wouldn't. So therefore I ask, when a 'Christian' looks at the Bible and says 'Genesis is obviously ridiculous, we don't follow that... oh and all that stuff about slavery, and homosexuals, and women being subservient... that is ridiculous', is that person really a Christian, or someone who wants to have their cake and eat it? You cannot simply pick and choose what you agree with when joining a cult - you are either all in, or all out. And nothing in the bible mentions evolution.

[Hylean]

(Original post by omgpop4real)
Is evolution compatible any particular religious doctrine? I don't think so.
The thing about religions is, as it turns out they are quite well defined. They have doctrines and principles and beliefs, and these are laid down in a text (usually, I suppose).
Now consider a legal contract, say for example a tenancy agreement. I want to buy a house, it looks pretty and it's comfortable. But the contract, when I read it, is ridiculous - it's asking of me that I do all sorts of crazy things that I don't want to do if I have the house. Now then imagine that, on the grounds of the ridiculous conditions required, I say "No, I do not wish to sign this contract because it is so ridiculous.". But then I go and park myself in the house anyway and set myself up a nice little pad. Legally, would I considered to be the rightful owner of this property? No, I wouldn't. So therefore I ask, when a 'Christian' looks at the Bible and says 'Genesis is obviously ridiculous, we don't follow that... oh and all that stuff about slavery, and homosexuals, and women being subservient... that is ridiculous', is that person really a Christian, or someone who wants to have their cake and eat it? You cannot simply pick and choose what you agree with when joining a cult - you are either all in, or all out. And nothing in the bible mentions evolution.

Nothing in The Bible states that it has to be taken literally either.

Also, religion is nothing like a legal contract.

[omgpop4real]

(Original post by Hylean)
Nothing in The Bible states that it has to be taken literally either.

Also, religion is nothing like a legal contract.

I think the analogy is quite good. It is a doctrine, with a specific set of beliefs. If you do not follow the beliefs, how can you follow the doctrine? That is absurd. You are taking the whole without taking any of the parts, you are - as I said - having you're cake and trying to eat it too.

And furthermore, if none of it is to be taken literally, how do you decide to believe any of it?

[amime]

(Original post by Hylean)
Nothing in The Bible states that it has to be taken literally either.

Then how does somebody decide which parts to take seriously?

[omgpop4real]

I think it's of utmost importance that people realise they are participating in a double standard by accepting only some of the doctrines of their faith and rejecting others. Many Christians claim to reject the old testament for example, however, canonical Christian bible includes the old testament. But even just looking to the new testament, it is said in different gospels at various points that none of what went before is to be forgotten 'until judgement day'. And again, the new testament also features homophobic messages.

Once more, if nothing in the bible states that any of it is to be taken literally, why even bother accepting any of it? And nothing in the bible states that it is to be taken as metaphor either can I just quickly point out, so by assuming that you are making a leap of logic which does not follow - one which you have clearly done in order to justify your cherry picking.

Essentially, what is happening is the religious people with a modicum of intelligence in each generation are reduced to less and less pervasive faiths. Once upon a time God (or gods) served as an answer to most of the common person's questions about his place in the world. But as time and science have marched forward, we've been able to construct more rational and evidenced based answers to these questions. In just two hundred years, the methods and tools of science have taken us from complete ignorance about our origins and believing as written the tale of genesis, to having almost a complete picture of how it all happened. And as our investigations in to those origins have deepened, we haven't found any reason to suspect anything divine having had an involvement in what we've discovered so far.

But those who still cling to religious beliefs see that there are gaps in our knowledge, and instead of encouraging scientific enquiry, they want to stifle us and have us accept that 'God did it'. How did we go from inorganic chemistry to cellular life? We don't know for sure yet - we've had some theories of course, none of which involve a deity - but honestly we are not really certain of the exact mechanism yet. Thus, the methods of science have reduced the omnipotence of God to nudging some nucleotide molecules in the right place at the right time as it stands. And I reckon its fair to say, considering what we've achieved so far in the past two hundred years, we'll probably have the scientific answer to that question in a matter of a couple of decades. What will then be left for God? The big bang?

Well we're already on that too. Looking at the current evidence, it is possible that our entire universe has a total energy of zero and arose from a simple, highly improbable quantum fluctuation. What existed before the big bang? A timeless, space-less manifold. Does that blow your mind? It probably sounds ridiculous to you if you are religious. What I must ask then is, what is less ridiculous: A timeless, space-less mathematical object; or a timeless, space-less big beardy man with human emotions who cares about the lives of mere humans and sends down his only son to atone them for the sins he led them to commit?

When you think about it really, it seems far more likely that God evolved from human minds, than humanity being evolved from the product of a God-like mind.