Celtic Heroes

It wouldn't be depressing if Certain people accepted the truth!

It wouldn't be depressing if Certain people accepted the truth!

Remember what I said earlier? Science and Christianity coexist:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZFZVSVObHCE

For religion, you are told to accept a truth and then have faith.

For science, you are asked to accept a truth and then it is your job to understand.

What do people mean by coexist? Science exists no matter what. If you can accept any change, then I guess anything can coexist.

I am kinda going to adopt plus3's argument now; you really can not deny such things as evolution and the Big Bang without denying all the progress we have made using the same exact scientific method.

For religion, you are told to accept a truth and then have faith.

For science, you are asked to accept a truth and then it is your job to understand.

What do people mean by coexist? Science exists no matter what. If you can accept any change, then I guess anything can coexist.

I am kinda going to adopt plus3's argument now; you really can not deny such things as evolution and the Big Bang without denying all the progress we have made using the same exact scientific method.

I'd add try to disprove after you understand the concept if you think there is a problem with it. It's seeing the approximations and glossed over parts of theories and making them better that leads to progress.

In science if you can do that successfully you become famous and looked up to by people around the world. If you do that in religion you are hated and in the past when religion had more control were jailed or murdered for it.

For religion, you are told to accept a truth and then have faith.

For science, you are asked to accept a truth and then it is your job to understand.

What do people mean by coexist? Science exists no matter what. If you can accept any change, then I guess anything can coexist.

I am kinda going to adopt plus3's argument now; you really can not deny such things as evolution and the Big Bang without denying all the progress we have made using the same exact scientific method.

I'd add try to disprove after you understand the concept if you think there is a problem with it. It's seeing the approximations and glossed over parts of theories and making them better that leads to progress.

In science if you can do that successfully you become famous and looked up to by people around the world. If you do that in religion you are hated and in the past when religion had more control were jailed or murdered for it.

Dependent on the religion, Buddhists have no problem with science, as they are peaceful and if you are a jew you are wayy more likely to get a nobel prize than say, a Muslim, because Muslims hate science unless it helps them make bigger bombs #stereotype

Just going to add my post here and merge topics:
In life there are people, events, ideas, and so much more. The best part is that we have found a way to communicate such information; pure and neutral information. Information does not require insults and if you have to insult to make your point, then your information is most likely flawed.

In regards to a certain idea that evolution and the Big Bang are only theories; may I remind you that in science we differentiate between laws and theories by how much evidence and how much certainty. With all things considered, everything is a theory and we can not be certain about anything. It is, however, based on patterns and a preponderance of evidence that we choose to stabilise society and make progress.

The evidence I had listed for both were in another topic and I shall repost it here:
Big Bang: from http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astrono ... l#evidence
a) Large-scale homogeneity
b) Hubble diagram
c) Abundances of light elements
d) Existence of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation
e) Fluctuations in the CMBR
f) Large-scale structure of the universe
g) Age of stars
h) Evolution of galaxies
i) Time dilation in supernova brightness curves
j) Tolman tests
k) Sunyaev-Zel'dovich effect
l) Integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect
m) Dark Matter
n) Dark Energy
z) Consistency

Evolution:
a) Early behaviour
b) Genetics
c) Fossils
d) Dating

The only hard evidence I can come up with for the bible is the bible and that is a fallacy. Someone mentioned that it had some historical events written down and, therefore, the rest of it is truth. Well, Ancient Greek religious scripture, which we now call mythology, included some historically correct information. Does that make all of it truth?

Another reminder, we judge by a preponderance of the evidence. Therefore, even if a few things with religion is correct and has valid reasoning, other ideas have far greater evidence. The type of evidence that is physical, continuing, contains patterns, etc.

Im not 100% sure a out the rest, but dark mater DOES NOT exist. Its a made up energy that cant be seen. Therefore, it cannot be proven, nor repeatable, Which makes this a failed hypothesis.

Many other ideas are made up by atheists scientists, which cannot be proven in any way.

You say gravity is less provable then evolution? Gravity is observable to the naked eye, and is also repeatable.Maybe the whole idea of how it works isnt clear yet, but the fact that we are attracted to the earth is very provable.
Evolution in the other hand, is not.