Go Back   Great Lakes 4x4. The largest offroad forum in the Midwest > General 4x4 Stuff > Politics, Government, or Religion Chat
GL4x4 Live! GL4x4 Casino

Politics, Government, or Religion Chat Bring your flamesuit!







Search
Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old November 2nd, 2007, 10:18 PM   #1
brewmenn
Grumpy old man.
 
brewmenn's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: Inkster, MI
Posts: 10,297
iTrader: (9)
science or religion

Suppose someone was to suggest that they had a theory for how the universe began, but for the theory to work it requires that there be things and forces existing around us that can not be seen, nor felt, nor detected by any earthly means, not even the more sensitive scientific instruments, and no one can even explain what this "stuff" actually is. In fact, the theory would suggest that most of the "stuff" in the universe is this stuff that no one can prove even exists, but they believe in it because that theory suggests that it's real, and without it the theory falls apart.

Does this sound like science or religion to you?
brewmenn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 2nd, 2007, 10:30 PM   #2
artistic_gore
I own @ halo
 
artistic_gore's Avatar
 
Join Date: 07-05-06
Location: Granite Falls, WA
Posts: 1,128
iTrader: (2)
Send a message via AIM to artistic_gore
It sounds like someone trying to spin the theory of dark matter in an attempt to make religion more plausible. If there is a god he is a bastard.
artistic_gore is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 2nd, 2007, 10:42 PM   #3
brewmenn
Grumpy old man.
 
brewmenn's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: Inkster, MI
Posts: 10,297
iTrader: (9)
Not trying to make anything sound more plausible. I just find it interesting that if a scientist stay something must exist because it's the only way his theorys work, but can't be proven otherwise, they call it science, but if Dave Kerwin were to make simular claims everyone would call it religion.

When religious person says theres things and forces out there beyond our comprehesion they call it god.
When a scientist says theres things and forces out there beyond our comprehesion they call it "dark matter and energy".

Maybe they're the same thing.
brewmenn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 2nd, 2007, 10:50 PM   #4
artistic_gore
I own @ halo
 
artistic_gore's Avatar
 
Join Date: 07-05-06
Location: Granite Falls, WA
Posts: 1,128
iTrader: (2)
Send a message via AIM to artistic_gore
Quote:
Originally Posted by brewmenn View Post
Not trying to make anything sound more plausible. I just find it interesting that if a scientist stay something must exist because it's the only way his theorys work, but can't be proven otherwise, they call it science, but if Dave Kerwin were to make simular claims everyone would call it religion.

When religious person says theres things and forces out there beyond our comprehesion they call it god.
When a scientist says theres things and forces out there beyond our comprehesion they call it "dark matter and energy".

Maybe they're the same thing.
In both science and religion you have to have faith. However in science they say "Allright you don't believe, give us a while and we'll prove it to you" religion is more, "I'm right, you're wrong, take it or leave it, we don't have to prove a thing"

This of course is just my opinion, you can see I am a very devout atheist.

Edit: and I probably will buy my son the golden compass...if it's any good of course.
artistic_gore is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 2nd, 2007, 11:14 PM   #5
Chiefwoohaw
Pokerob is my B*tch!
 
Chiefwoohaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-06-05
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 11,502
iTrader: (7)
Quote:
Originally Posted by artistic_gore View Post
In both science and religion you have to have faith. However in science they say "Allright you don't believe, give us a while and we'll prove it to you" religion is more, "I'm right, you're wrong, take it or leave it, we don't have to prove a thing"

This of course is just my opinion, you can see I am a very devout atheist.

Edit: and I probably will buy my son the golden compass...if it's any good of course.
Devil 1
Jesus 0

With this guy atleast.
Chiefwoohaw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 2nd, 2007, 11:26 PM   #6
artistic_gore
I own @ halo
 
artistic_gore's Avatar
 
Join Date: 07-05-06
Location: Granite Falls, WA
Posts: 1,128
iTrader: (2)
Send a message via AIM to artistic_gore
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chiefwoohaw View Post
Devil 1
Jesus 0

With this guy atleast.
I don't believe in the devil either, I'm pretty sure he wasn't even in the bible to begin with. Something about appearing in text 400 years after the bible was originally written, I'm kinda cloudy on the details. I could just flat be wrong. Who knows?
artistic_gore is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 2nd, 2007, 11:48 PM   #7
Mongo
.
 
Mongo's Avatar
 
Join Date: 02-25-06
Location: Fenton
Posts: 8,042
iTrader: (6)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chiefwoohaw View Post
Devil 1
Jesus 0

With this guy atleast.
Finally, I'm winning.
Mongo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 3rd, 2007, 08:35 AM   #8
Dave Kerwin
web wheeling, hard.
 
Dave Kerwin's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-18-05
Location: SE MI
Posts: 6,667
iTrader: (9)
good question bruce!

another question: if science was ALL it is claimed to be, why can't it disprove other theories? why is there scientific credibility to the biblical account of creation?
Dave Kerwin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 3rd, 2007, 02:33 PM   #9
Lothos
KD8GKB
 
Lothos's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-17-05
Location: .5 past lightspeed
Posts: 6,506
iTrader: (3)
Send a message via ICQ to Lothos Send a message via AIM to Lothos Send a message via Yahoo to Lothos
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Kerwin View Post
good question bruce!

another question: if science was ALL it is claimed to be, why can't it disprove other theories? why is there scientific credibility to the biblical account of creation?
oh please tell me you aren't going to bring Kent Hovind into this.

Bruce, the failing point of science in alot of cases is failing to take that next step. This is something I happen to agree with Hovind on, if something is an unknown to us but requires an accepted definition in order to pursue other answers to other questions I'm perfectly happy with that. Some assumptions have to be taken within the scientific method. The problem though is when those assumptions have become so ingrained that nobody questions them anymore and simply accepts them as truths. speed of light, theory of relativity, subspace, dark matter, etc... Hell, even infinity itself is a term used by science so much so its accepted in principle as a truth unto itself.

There are too many unknowns in the universe to fully embrace either science or religion as an either or I think. Religion exists to calm us and help us deal with the present while science helps us understand the past and question the future. And before you ask, no I don't believe in god. I'll just say I'm not monotheistic.
Lothos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 5th, 2007, 07:18 AM   #10
Dave Kerwin
web wheeling, hard.
 
Dave Kerwin's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-18-05
Location: SE MI
Posts: 6,667
iTrader: (9)
A lot of people say it is either one or the other. I completely disagree. Science has faith, and faith has science, and there is NO denying it. The scientific community has faith in their system and plenty of unknown and unprovable beliefs. Likewise, faith has gaps in the science side of the equation. But from what I have seen, the biblical account of creation gains MORE scientific support as time goes on, NOT less.
Dave Kerwin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 5th, 2007, 07:25 AM   #11
IFS SUCKS
I like trees
 
IFS SUCKS's Avatar
 
Join Date: 09-20-07
Location: Lansing,MI
Posts: 5,796
iTrader: (6)
? Thats All I Got Sorry
IFS SUCKS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 5th, 2007, 01:40 PM   #12
Lothos
KD8GKB
 
Lothos's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-17-05
Location: .5 past lightspeed
Posts: 6,506
iTrader: (3)
Send a message via ICQ to Lothos Send a message via AIM to Lothos Send a message via Yahoo to Lothos
Kerwin, have you watched any of the Kent Hovind videos on youtube or where ever?

One thing I have a problem with comprehending is the whole the earth is only 9k years old bit that the bible leads us to believe.

Oh, and I have an issue with the scientific logic behind plate tectonics. Specifically that the plates move across the earth's surface with one edge constantly going down towards the core and a new edge forming on the backside. This explanation contradicts/disproves the possibility of pangea.
Lothos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 5th, 2007, 02:04 PM   #13
Dave Kerwin
web wheeling, hard.
 
Dave Kerwin's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-18-05
Location: SE MI
Posts: 6,667
iTrader: (9)
I have not watched Hovind, you like or dislike?

If you have an issue with a young earth theory, why don't you have an issue with al old earth theory? Either way, no one was there and we can't know for sure. Wouldn't BOTH bother you then?

Why would it have to be true that all land mass was once connected? Why is that a necessity?
Dave Kerwin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 5th, 2007, 02:09 PM   #14
Paul04TJ
Small, but talented
 
Paul04TJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: Shelby Twp. MI
Posts: 2,596
iTrader: (10)
Quote:
Originally Posted by artistic_gore View Post
However in science they say "Allright you don't believe, give us a while and we'll prove it to you.

Same with Religion.
But when it's finally proving to you, It's too late to make a change. :tonka:

I, for one, will live my life not needing to change!
Paul04TJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 5th, 2007, 02:14 PM   #15
Lothos
KD8GKB
 
Lothos's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-17-05
Location: .5 past lightspeed
Posts: 6,506
iTrader: (3)
Send a message via ICQ to Lothos Send a message via AIM to Lothos Send a message via Yahoo to Lothos
Hovind brings good arguments to the table as a creationist. Not being a typical creationist liker myself I'm more inclined to hear him out and seek answers as a result of theories he proposes. He's an excellent debater too regardless of truth behind the material. Every person I saw go up against him always seemed flustered and lost in the material. I would recommend anyone to watch his videos with an open mind. Science after all needs questions asked in order to have things to research and answer.

My problem between the two young/old theories is the evidence and arguments made to support them. I think fundamentally we as a species have a hard time with the concept of time with regards to the universe. And if time is in question, distance is exponentially an issue.

I believe in pangea, I have a problem with the explanation of plate tectonics that is all. I think the plates move, but the surface on those plates remains generally unchanged. The edges might fall off on occassion, but I don't think they move like a tank tread as most theories would lead you to believe.
Lothos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 5th, 2007, 02:20 PM   #16
Dave Kerwin
web wheeling, hard.
 
Dave Kerwin's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-18-05
Location: SE MI
Posts: 6,667
iTrader: (9)
I agree that time is a tough concept for us, we live very short lives. Eternity is an even more troubling concept to wrap our minds around.
Dave Kerwin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 5th, 2007, 02:20 PM   #17
Dave Kerwin
web wheeling, hard.
 
Dave Kerwin's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-18-05
Location: SE MI
Posts: 6,667
iTrader: (9)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul04TJ View Post
Same with Religion.
But when it's finally proving to you, It's too late to make a change. :tonka:

I, for one, will live my life not needing to change!
Not needing to change from a committment to Christ or not needing to change your life to fit his calling?
Dave Kerwin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 5th, 2007, 04:54 PM   #18
Paul04TJ
Small, but talented
 
Paul04TJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: Shelby Twp. MI
Posts: 2,596
iTrader: (10)
I don't need to change my life to fit His calling.

Although I can't really say I ever really changed, I've tried most of my life to follow the word.
Paul04TJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 5th, 2007, 06:12 PM   #19
Motor Slut
I put the Ick in Dick.
 
Motor Slut's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-10-05
Location: 49963
Posts: 2,411
iTrader: (0)
Umm it's both and it can be both because Science is exploration of the unknown and refinement of the known. God is the unknown and maybe someday science will find him.
Motor Slut is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 5th, 2007, 09:47 PM   #20
brewmenn
Grumpy old man.
 
brewmenn's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: Inkster, MI
Posts: 10,297
iTrader: (9)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Kerwin View Post
I have not watched Hovind, you like or dislike?

If you have an issue with a young earth theory, why don't you have an issue with al old earth theory? Either way, no one was there and we can't know for sure. Wouldn't BOTH bother you then?

Why would it have to be true that all land mass was once connected? Why is that a necessity?
I've yet to hear a convincing explanation for all those old dinosaur bones in a "young earth" theory. I've heard it suggested that maybe God created them when he created the earth just to mess with our heads but I have a tough time accepting that. Also, that explination could be used to refute any argument against creation.
brewmenn is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply
Great Lakes 4x4. The largest offroad forum in the Midwest > General 4x4 Stuff > Politics, Government, or Religion Chat
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:32 AM.


Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright 2000 - 2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2005 - 2012 Cracker Enterprises - Powered by Linux
vB Ad Management by =RedTyger=
Page generated in 0.19231 seconds with 50 queries