Forum:God does not contradict most of Science

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
I believe I am making a thread right now.

Anyway, I would like to say that Science and God don't have to be battling it out together. If a scientists would just give up a few IDEAS that have never been PROVEN in existence ( Evolution................) and realize there is no reason to believe the bible is FAKE...Hey, maybe you and me could get along.. Also.. I don't know..I just want this to be a place where we can learn to agree on some things, and talk about our differences.  :) Yeah...I suppose a Christian and an Athiest have quite a lot of differences. Ha. But besides God, perhaps were extremely similar to each other. Pitzy 20:07, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Okay, we're going to go all the way back to incredibly basic concepts here. Define "science". Tell me what it is. I promise this is leading somewhere. Ikanreed (talk) 20:09, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Meh, well, I guess I was trying to say the only thing God contradicts is the things that contradict the Bible.. So things like the sciences of the body, chemistry, and stuff like that are not sinful or anything. (Unless your just test subjects. Just kidding. I think that's illegal) So like, I guess an evolutionist is a scientist? Probably. yeah. That's sounds right. So that is one science that contradicts God, but as a WHOLE most of the things are fine... : But seriously, I would sincerely want to know...What is your biggest problem with Christians?Pitzy 20:16, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

No, I don't mean "list some sciences, please." I mean what is science, itself? What does the word mean? How can you tell if a given idea is scientific or not? Ikanreed (talk) 20:33, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment: I agree with what Goolgle said. Do you think that contradicts God? I don't, not really. Pitzy
(You're still not signing your posts properly. Four tildes)
Okay, to continue this trail I'm leading you on: where does the word "proof" show up in the concept of science? Ikanreed (talk) 20:47, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Adressing the "What is your biggest problem with Christians?"[edit]

I have no problems with Christians. Many friends, family, and colleagues are Christian. They're human. To me, Christianity simply one way to be wrong, in a world filled with many. Mistakes are easy to make and ones about the nature of the universe, in and of themselves, are harmless.

Christianity is wrong. Not in the way murder is wrong. But in the way thinking the moon is made of cheese is wrong. It makes assumptions, and then doesn't check the facts, but day-to-day it those assumptions aren't that big a deal. I'm wrong about a lot things too. And if I knew what they were, I'd stop being wrong about them.

To say I have a problem with Christians is like saying I have a problem with people who can't solve a system of quadratic equations just because I can. It'd be stupid.

I and many others, including some Christians, do have a problem with some things done in the name of Christianity. Bigotry against gays. Violence against those of other faiths. Bombing abortion clinics. Passing laws that protect no one from harm in order to save them from "sin". Ikanreed (talk) 20:33, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Just to add, evolution being true doesn't mean Christianity is false. There are Christians that accept evolution as true, which is proven to be true via...well, the full list in Branches of science you have to ignore to believe in young Earth creationism. Not all Christians are young earth creationists. The OP casting them as such is not correct. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 20:40, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Trust me, I know not all Christians are creationists I can safely say that all CORRECT Christians are not evolutionists, though.Pitzy
I'm pretty sure they'd say the same thing about themselves as you are about yourself, what's your point?--Miekal 20:44, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Seriously, I don't get why so many devout Christians insist on denying evolution. It's really as simple as "organisms inherit some traits, the environment they live in determines which traits help the organism in surviving and procreating". If you don't like the suggestion that humans evolved from apes, then just posit that God created humans seperately from other animals. You don't need to throw the whole concept of evolution in the trashbin. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 17:52, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
But, see, the problem is without literal inerracy, what exactly defines the bible's level of accuracy? That raises uncomfortable questions for the people who are taught to never question anything. There's a contempt for people who aren't absolutely certain they're right about things they're wrong about. The inerracy crowd calls them "Cafeteria Christians" Ikanreed (talk) 17:59, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm aware that the biblical literalists think they're the only "true" Christians (which is pretty hilarious, given the way the current biblical canon came to be). But even if you take the Bible literally, with all its stated acts of creation, that doesn't mean animal species can't start evolving once they're created, as the laws of logic and the observed existence of inherited traits would seem to necessitate. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 19:32, 16 January 2015 (UTC)


My point is the Bible gives no record of Evolution. Also, the link that guy gave...If God is Eternal, I think he can defy all of the stuff on there. I mean, creating something out of nothing pretty much makes a scientist not believe in God, if they are not a Christian and don't believe in miracles. Pitzy

But, for, of course, the fact that even it could be defied, there'd be no reason to the substantial evidence that exists. Why have hundreds of millions of years of fossil strata, even if you could defy their existence through omnipotence, they're there. Same with starlight that gives evidence of having the same composition of the sun but is apparently billions of years old.
Sure you can just say "I can imagine anything being possible", but that's just an incredibly petty ignorance and a refusal to ask why it's there at all. Ikanreed (talk) 19:47, 16 January 2015 (UTC) Have you ever wondered if I believed the world was billions of years old? Pitzy 18:46, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Parodist[edit]

Come on guys. It was fun for a while but this editor is obviously a parodist.--Coffee (talk) 20:56, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I have nothing better to do til 6 --Miekal 20:58, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Nah, they're actually 14. A parodist would do better with wikiformatting and the like. Ikanreed (talk) 21:17, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Mmmmm - Parodist or child??? I'm still inclined to go parodist.--Coffee (talk) 21:35, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm befuddled. Pitzy
We know.--TiaC (talk) 22:09, 16 January 2015 (UTC)