Religion

[Mr Kobayashi]

“But from the beginning of creation, God ‘made them male and female.’

What is the religious explanation for people born intersex?

A process of creation in the womb by a perfect divine creator should be perfect itself, surely?

Why are people born with abnormal chromosomes and ambiguous genitalia?

However, Evolution is perfectly compatible with biochemical processes "going wrong".

Why do hybrid animals exist if God designed everything individually....?

The animals marched two by two.... what about the species of animal that produce asexually?

 

[andyhinch]

I didn’t read anything past the first sentence. I genuinely think you’re poorly and hope you get the help you so obviously need.

It’s not the thoughts on a rational mind, hope he’s ok.

 

[JASR]

another 2 tranches of bible quoting waffle, from the troll liar - ‘I’m too busy to answer your simple questions’

the only proof/validation presented of a particular god, seems to involve invoking the singular book that describes the zealots beliefs.
Ie I believe in X because it says it in X.
That’s it. Nothing more. Zilch. Nada. Laughable

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

Just spent the last couple of hours putting pathstones back in position in my wife’s church grounds following a group of Scrooge’s jacking them up to nick later on tonight.

 

[I'm With Stupid]

What youre saying is that evolutionary science is objective and unbiased, while religion (and by extension, creationism) is biased and dogmatic. True science is not about ideology when it really is. The condescension is noticeable.
Theres a gigantic power of worldviews to control and guide scientists’ interpretations—especially when dealing with the unobservable past. Evidence does not speak for itself. It must always be interpreted in light of an a priori worldview.
Thetexwas a time when most fields of science developed by Bible-believing Christians. For example, consider Isaac Newton, Gregor Mendel, Louis Pasteur, Johann Kepler, Galileo Galilei, Robert Boyle, Blaise Pascal, Michael Faraday, James Joule, Joseph Lister, and James Clerk Maxwell. Were these “greats” of science not doing science?
Only the God described in the Bible can account for a logical and orderly universe. God upholds the universe in such a way that we can study it by observation and experimentation.

However, evolution (whether chemical, biological, astronomical, or geological) is far from scientific.
1.No one has been able to observe or repeat the making of life from non-life (matter giving rise to life or chemical evolution).
2.No one has been able to observe or repeat the changing of a single-celled life-form like an amoeba into a man over billions of years (biological evolution).
3.No one has been able to observe the big bang (astronomical evolution). Matter just came into being uncaused as Alan Guth says ,"the Universe is the ultimate free lunch"
4.No one has observed millions of years of time progressing in geological layers (geological evolution). The fossils say no- no transitions traversing the created 'kinds

The chief ‘proof’, for the big bang theory is the unevennesses (of 1 part per 100,000) in the cosmic background radiation of the universe, as in this so-called 2013 Planck ‘map’ above. But this involves circularity. The evidence is interpreted assuming the big bang theory to be true, and then it is used to support the theory.
The big bang is one of the most non-scientific narratives ever postulated. It has evolved considerably over the last 30 years or so, not so much because of new evidence in support of it, but because more and more problems have arisen to seriously undermine it.

Energy can be converted into matter according to Einstein’s equation E=mc², but when this happens exactly equal amounts of matter and antimatter are formed. So the 200 billion galaxies of antimatter that had to form to balance the 200 billion galaxies of stars are missing
The big bang is supposed to have begun by means of a quantum fluctuation. The quantum fluctuation is not nothing. So where did it come from? And this could not have happened prior to any time or space for anything to quantum-fluctuate in.
The big bang depends on early inflation of the universe that lasted from 10-³⁶ to between 10‐³³ and 10‐³²seconds, at many times the speed of light, with no known mechanism either to cause this, or to stop it once it began.
The big bang has a light-travel time problem, from the fact that the cosmic microwave background (CMB) has the same temperature over the entire sky, namely 2.726 ± 0.001 K (i.e. above absolute zero). However, there hasn’t been enough time for radiation to travel between widely separated regions of space at the speed of light, to produce the uniform CMB temperature over the whole sky. This is technically known as the big bang ‘horizon problem

Big bang theory only produces an expanding cloud of gas. Expanding clouds of gas do not spontaneously reverse their expansion and condense into the objects ( stars) we see in the real universe around us

The list goes on

Some religious people have done good science? Check.
There are some things that current science can't explain, therefore God? Check.

Your objections are not scientific ones, they are objections you've read on religious websites where someone has compiled arguments against anything that might cause a problem for your religious dogma. It's exactly the same as the opponents of Galileo, who you ironically now claim as one of your own when no doubt had you been around in 1633, you would have been gladly cheering on the inquisition against him as you cite "biblical evidence" for why he's wrong. Imagine how much more he could have achieved had it not been for the threat of religious institutions. Even more recently, we would have had the theory of natural selection about 20 years earlier if Charles Darwin had been a non-religious scientist or lived in a non-religious society.

And yes, science as a system and process is as unbiased as we have come up with so far. Individual scientists or journals may not be, but that's why the process exists. Whereas religion is entirely biased all of the time without fail. There's not a single scientific advance or discovery in any of the fields that we've talked about that hasn't been routinely and baselessly opposed by religious institutions and vast swathes of the religious population long after the evidence is overwhelming.

And yes, plenty of current religious people do great science or philosophy, but William Lane Craig has spent his entire career at explicitly religious institutions whose entire ethos is the spreading of a particular religious worldview. If I wanted to do a degree at his university, I would have to do 80 credits of religious studies throughout my degree, regardless of whether it's relevant to the subject I'm studying. To teach at the university, I would have to go through a test to make sure that I follow an evangelical Christian ethos.

Literally all you've done is cite things you don't know (what caused the big bang?) and things you choose not to know (the multiple separate fields of evidence for evolution, for example) and then shoved God into those gaps.

Some of the objections are laughable. No-one has been able to observe or repeat something that takes billions of years? I wonder why that is. You must have really struggled with history class in school if that's your reasoning. If you dug up a bunch of artifacts in a field, would you just say "oh well, I didn't see where these came from so that's the end of the story." No of course you wouldn't. You'd take existing evidence from various fields to create a picture of what happened. And evolution is supported by so many fields of evidence that your tiny objections to one of the fields (on the apparent basis that you don't know about the latest discoveries into self-replicating molecules, and just flat out ignore the entire DNA record) are a drop in the ocean.

But yeah, basically God of the gaps and nothing more. No positive evidence whatsoever for God, just "The universe appears ordered. I can't explain that order. Therefore God." And coincidently, therefore your God. Not Brahma or Phanes or Odin or any of the other thousands of options.

 

[I'm With Stupid]

The animals marched two by two.... what about the species of animal that produce asexually?

To be fair, some of them marched in sevens. Must have been a big fucking boat. The thing I love about creationists is that they spend so much time trashing science when it contradicts something in their holy book, but the second there's some proper scientific evidence that even hints that part of it might be true, they're all over it. For example, there's a certain amount of geological evidence for a large flooding event in the Middle East that could have explained the Noah myth. Creationists are all over this. But when the same field present evidence for the age of the earth or the survival of fossils, they don't want to hear it.

 

[Bill Walker]

Just know that you and your deluded brethren are holding the world back. Hope that keeps you warm and fuzzy when you're in bed praying to your fairytale in the sky at night.
You should ve sectioned.

I'm not religious but I think people should be allowed to believe in whatever God or science they want without ridicule. Or being told they're insane.

 

[paulsimpson]

Some religious people have done good science? Check.
There are some things that current science can't explain, therefore God? Check.

Your objections are not scientific ones, they are objections you've read on religious websites where someone has compiled arguments against anything that might cause a problem for your religious dogma. It's exactly the same as the opponents of Galileo, who you ironically now claim as one of your own when no doubt had you been around in 1633, you would have been gladly cheering on the inquisition against him as you cite "biblical evidence" for why he's wrong. Imagine how much more he could have achieved had it not been for the threat of religious institutions. Even more recently, we would have had the theory of natural selection about 20 years earlier if Charles Darwin had been a non-religious scientist or lived in a non-religious society.

And yes, science as a system and process is as unbiased as we have come up with so far. Individual scientists or journals may not be, but that's why the process exists. Whereas religion is entirely biased all of the time without fail. There's not a single scientific advance or discovery in any of the fields that we've talked about that hasn't been routinely and baselessly opposed by religious institutions and vast swathes of the religious population long after the evidence is overwhelming.

And yes, plenty of current religious people do great science or philosophy, but William Lane Craig has spent his entire career at explicitly religious institutions whose entire ethos is the spreading of a particular religious worldview. If I wanted to do a degree at his university, I would have to do 80 credits of religious studies throughout my degree, regardless of whether it's relevant to the subject I'm studying. To teach at the university, I would have to go through a test to make sure that I follow an evangelical Christian ethos.

Literally all you've done is cite things you don't know (what caused the big bang?) and things you choose not to know (the multiple separate fields of evidence for evolution, for example) and then shoved God into those gaps.

Some of the objections are laughable. No-one has been able to observe or repeat something that takes billions of years? I wonder why that is. You must have really struggled with history class in school if that's your reasoning. If you dug up a bunch of artifacts in a field, would you just say "oh well, I didn't see where these came from so that's the end of the story." No of course you wouldn't. You'd take existing evidence from various fields to create a picture of what happened. And evolution is supported by so many fields of evidence that your tiny objections to one of the fields (on the apparent basis that you don't know about the latest discoveries into self-replicating molecules, and just flat out ignore the entire DNA record) are a drop in the ocean.

But yeah, basically God of the gaps and nothing more. No positive evidence whatsoever for God, just "The universe appears ordered. I can't explain that order. Therefore God." And coincidently, therefore your God. Not Brahma or Phanes or Odin or any of the other thousands of options.

 

[SWP's back]

No one has been able to observe or repeat the changing of a single-celled life-form like an amoeba into a man over billions of years (biological evolution).
3.No one has been able to observe the big bang (astronomical evolution). Matter just came into being uncaused as Alan Guth says ,"the Universe is the ultimate free lunch"
4.No one has observed millions of years of time progressing in geological layers (geological evolution). The fossils say no- no transitions traversing the created 'kinds

You know this is all bollocks don’t you?

 

[SWP's back]

I'm not religious but I think people should be allowed to believe in whatever God or science they want without ridicule. Or being told they're insane.

There are plenty of religious people who I don’t believe are insane. The troll poster who thinks the Earth is 6,000 years old isn’t one of them.

As for “no one should be ridiculed for this belief”, fuck that. That’s absolute horse shit. Why? Why should one person’s irrational belief be sacrosanct?