Science and Religion

[Phoenix]

Why haven't they detected your alleged invisible pink unicorns?

Hah, so you're actually admitting that God = Invisible pink unicorns is a fair analogy? That's the point. You believe without proof, so you can't disprove unicorns.

Which reminds me....something can't be Pink and invisible at the same time.

Omnipotent. They can do anything.

 

[Ysu]

Ok, so did anyone read the article in the link? I had hoped we could discuss that before you all went at each others necks. So does anyone agree with the article and its theory or can Phoenix present anything that will disprove that theory.

 

[Shadukai X]

Science and Religion (or atleast catholicism) can coincide just fine, there is just the issue of certain things, like evolution

 

[ozymandius]

Its quite simple actually:

the Science explains the how and the Religion explains the who and why

 

[Shadukai X]

Very good point ozy.
Do you people know that evolution is still a theory, not a proven fact? The Church disagree's with this theory, saying that God created everything the way it is.

 

[Dogenzaka]

Omnipotent. They can do anything.

Says who? You can't be pink and invisible at the same time. Pink is visible.

so you can't disprove unicorns.

I was never trying.

Hah, so you're actually admitting that God = Invisible pink unicorns is a fair analogy?

Where did I say this?

 

[Phoenix]

Says who? You can't be pink and invisible at the same time. Pink is visible.

Do not question the unicorns. They are beyond your comprehension.

I was never trying.

It's what you're doing right now.

Where did I say this?

Implied, when you ask a question which you haven't answered. Why haven't they discovered God via science?

Science and Religion (or atleast catholicism) can coincide just fine, there is just the issue of certain things, like evolution

I just proved why not. Read the first page.

the Science explains the how and the Religion explains the who and why

Wrong. Laws explain how, theories explain why, and who is explained by both if there's a who to talk about, in this case, no.

Do you people know that evolution is still a theory, not a proven fact? The Church disagree's with this theory, saying that God created everything the way it is.

You know, if you want to convert people, get your terminology straight. All you do is drive people who like science away when you say things like this.

"In scientific usage, a theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it often does in other contexts. A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. It originates from and/or is supported by experimental evidence (see scientific method). In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations that is predictive, logical and testable. In principle, scientific theories are always tentative, and subject to corrections or inclusion in a yet wider theory. Commonly, a large number of more specific hypotheses may be logically bound together by just one or two theories. As a general rule for use of the term, theories tend to deal with much broader sets of universals than do hypotheses, which ordinarily deal with much more specific sets of phenomena or specific applications of a theory."

In simple words, "2 + 2" is the proof, and "4" is the theory. When you hear about the scientific debate on evolution, it's not scientists debating whether they believe it happened or not, they debate how it happened.

In even simpler words, the theory of evolution is still debated, but the event in question (evolution) is a fact.

 

[Voltron]

religoin and science dont go good with me and im my science boook i have its got some good eveidence that we didnt evolve and stuff

 

[Phoenix]

Then share it with us. I'll be more than happy to disprove it.

 

[Voltron]

well when monday comes i will cause i kinda forgot it at school but it talks about thsi animal call eohippus or something like that and there talking about how they say that horse's evolved from it and that they didnt and that it wa some kind of extinct animal i will tell ya all 8 paragraphs of it monday i promise

 

[Phoenix]

Assuming you're telling the truth, forgot no key paragraph or word, or neglected to mention something of importance.... so?

It's one species. If that was the form this mythical animal survived best in, then it supports evolution.

 

[Voltron]

well i will dont worry lol i wont and thats in a whole nother scetion there are acutall 9 paragraphs i will give every important word and memer this is not what i think its what the book says

 

[Phoenix]

No, don't give every word. Merely give me the name of the species, and I'll wiki it.

 

[Voltron]

well ok i will but i will give ya the paragraph that talks about that horse thing cause its not as long but the other stuff gives better proof

 

[Phoenix]

Yes, and more likely than not, it's proof that's already been refuted on Wikipedia and talkorigins.

 

[Voltron]

well we wont know till then and i say you will prolly prove me wrong cause those books are likt from the 70s so yea but who knows

 

[Phoenix]

There you go. Some creationists still use comments from decades ago. Like Moon dust, missing day, why are monkeys still around, that sort of thing. It's rather amusing.

 

[Voltron]

yea but i still agree with it and stuff

 

[Phoenix]

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

Hundreds (perhaps thousands) of creationist claims, and the rebuttals for each, are listed here. Try to find the one you're thinking off (it'd fall under Biology).

 

[Voltron]

oh here is tha animal my book talks about


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

i will tell you monday what y they said that it didnt evolve and stuff