General Question

pleiades's avatar

Is it possible to believe in both God and science?

Asked by pleiades (6207 points ) December 31st, 2012

Why or why not?

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

241 Answers

JLeslie's avatar

Of course. I never understood why there would be a conflict. If God is the creator of the universe, then He laid the ground work for which science tries to explain. Many religions fully support that science and God are not in conflict.

El_Cadejo's avatar

Im an agnostic atheist myself so while I think its pretty improbable that a god does exist, I can’t discount the possibility of such a thing as I have no proof stating otherwise. That said, if such a god were proven to exist I don’t see why it couldn’t be explained through science. I don’t believe the two things to be mutually exclusive.

Rarebear's avatar

Of course. I work quite closely with a Christian astrophysicst, actually.

linguaphile's avatar

They’re not mutually exclusive. If there’s a God, then I am sure he would be thrilled when we use the brains he made for us to analyze, question, apply, challenge, develop, deconstruct, create and to understand science.

Humans have this unique power. If we were created by a God, any blind obedience to any rigid dogma, including scientific dogma, is actually in contrast to what our brains were created to accomplish.

Science is just human’s way of measuring, analyzing, organizing and understanding the universe. In other words, a way of using our brains. Science is open-ended—there’s always room to re-evaluate and readjust as we discover new information. Believing in God is also a way of understanding the universe, just on a metaphysical level.

JenniferP's avatar

Absolutely. But it isn’t possible to believe in both evolution (pseudoscience) and God.

ragingloli's avatar

Only if you take neither very seriously.
You either believe that the world is 6000 years old, as the biblical genealogies demand, or you accept the fact that the world is 4.5 billion years old.
You either believe the biblical myth that humans were fully formed from dirt, or you accept the scientific fact of evolution.
Otherwise you end up in a situation where you either arbitrarily reinterpret “scripture” to make it fit with established scientific fact, or, as demonstrated by the post above, you start to arbitrarily dismiss evidentially demonstrated scientific fact as “pseudoscience”.

Rarebear's avatar

Evolution is not pseudoscience.

LostInParadise's avatar

Yes it is possible.

You can be a deist and believe that God created the Universe and then left it alone.

Alternatively, you can believe that there are scientific laws that God enforces most of the time, but sometimes God violates the laws and brings forth a miracle.

There is also a quantum mechanical interpretation. The usual interpretation of quantum mechanics is that particles behave probabilistically. That would give God wiggle room to do things that are highly unlikely but do not strictly violate scientific law.

I second @Rarebear about evolution. There is no reason why you can’t believe in both God and evolution. The Pope, for one, has no problem with it.

flutherother's avatar

I don’t see any conflict between believing in God and believing in science. I see science as a way of understanding God. There can be conflict between religion and God, though there shouldn’t be. There is only one truth.

dabbler's avatar

@JenniferP Huh? “evolution (pseudoscience)” By what sort of definition of pseudo or science is evolution pseudoscience?
I’m with @Rarebear on this one, “Evolution is not pseudoscience.”

Here’s some pseudoscience for you.
“Children play and dinosaurs roam near Eden’s Rivers” If this were presented as kids’ make-believe then the sky’s the limit. But it isn’t. It’s is an example of Grade-A travesty of both scripture and science.

zenvelo's avatar

Yes, it is not only possible, it is very understandable and does not create a conflict in a thinking person. (I am not debating the existence of God right now).

But both @JenniferP and @ragingloli are not demonstrating a belief in God, but some people’s belief in the divinity of the modern version of an often translated written book. Why such people worship a book instead of God baffles me.

JenniferP's avatar

I knew I would get a reaction but it is true. There is no macroevolution. Someone said that I believed the earth was only 6,000 years old. I do not. I am not a young earth creationist.

@zenvelo-Some people who believe in evolution would laugh that you think the Bible is compatible with it.

bookish1's avatar

Why wouldn’t it be????
I had this one figured out in 5th grade.
But, I was not raised by fundamentalists, nor was I raised to believe in the Old Testament jealous desert sky king.

SuperMouse's avatar

Yes, not only is it possible to believe in religion and science, it is absolutely necessary for believers.

`Abdu’l-Bahá on the subject of religion and science:

“If religious beliefs and opinions are found contrary to the standards of science, they are mere superstitions and imaginations; for the antithesis of knowledge is ignorance, and the child of ignorance is superstition. Unquestionably there must be agreement between true religion and science. If a question be found contrary to reason, faith and belief in it are impossible, and there is no outcome but wavering and vacillation.

Here is a link with some wonderful quotes and discussion regarding the complete agreement of religion and science, In my experience, when people try to make religion and science mutually exclusive it is typically to advance a personal agenda of faith or atheism.

@JenniferP come on now. By saying “there is no macroevolution” you are disregarding science completely. It sounds as though you are spewing a party line. When it comes to having, believing, and living any type of real faith the most important part is independent investigation of the truth so that one’s beliefs are one’s own and not just based on stories they are spoon fed. Even the most dedicated evangelical Christians I know can very easily view the story of creation as told in Genesis through a lens of science.

JenniferP's avatar

The way things are described in the Bible, contradicts evolution. I remember an evolution believer/atheist on another site arguing with a evolution believer/Bible believer. They both believed in evolution but the atheist was insisting that the Bible wasn’t compatible with it.

Show me that life can come from non-life and I’ll believe y’all.

The only way that one can reconcile the Genesis account with evolution is if one considers it a metaphor.

SuperMouse's avatar

@JenniferP first, the Bible is allegory and was written by man. While many believe it is the word of God, it is essential to remember it was written by man. Second, even if taken literally, the Bible does not necessarily contradict evolution. Time is a man made construct. Who is to say that God’s seven days are not millions of years to man?

I agree with you that nothing plus nothing equals nothing. I believe that even going back to the Big Bang and primordial soup, something had to put the process in motion, and I believe that something is God. That being said, the process that was put in motion has its own set of inviolable laws. That set of inviolable laws is science.

jerv's avatar

Only if one has enough intelligence to truly qualify as human instead of an automaton.

@JenniferP Evolution makes no attempt to establish a First Cause; it is possible that God set it all in motion. Maybe when He said Man was created in His image, He meant “ever-changing”. So stop perpetuating the idea that all Christians are anti-science, and admit that it’s possible to reconcile Evolution and Genesis.

RandomGirl's avatar

Yes. I find it takes more faith to believe that “nothing” just spontaneously exploded and made atoms that made molecules that made living, breathing, thinking, feeling creatures, than to believe that an all-knowing Creator made it all happen. But if you can muster up that much faith, good for you.

cookieman's avatar

As a child, in Sunday Catholic school, I got in trouble with the teacher for suggesting that maybe Adam and Eve were apes.

Now clearly, there were some flaws in my 7-year-old logic, but even then I assumed the bible was a “guide book” or a bunch of stories that tried to explain things that were not fully understood at the time.

If you accept that the bible was written by man in this manner (or as metaphor), then it works out just fine.

dxs's avatar

First of all, I definitely agree with @SuperMouse when saying that the bible cannot be taken literally (in the Old Testament at least) as some organizations do because a lot of it is metaphoric.
I definitely agree with @RandomGirl when saying that it’s harder to believe in the “big bang” theory. I always go back to Thomas Aquinas (a Saint in Catholicism) who would take a more scientific approach to prove God’s existence. He asks questions like “How did the first object move?” and “If everything happens because of a reason, then what was the first reason?”. This is what makes me believe that there is some sort of deity because it makes sense that something had to start existence because I can’t understand that it had just always been here.

poisonedantidote's avatar

You can only believe in a god and in science, if you are willing to overlook the rules of science when looking at the god thing. If you treat both the same, then you can only believe in science and not god.

It is inconsistent to believe both, you have to have a double standard.

SuperMouse's avatar

@poisonedantidote it is not a double standard. The two are in perfect agreement. One of the problems with the creationist philosophy is that it is based on ignorance of science which casts a pall over all believers. Science and religion are in perfect agreement, it is only when certain believers try to negate science that problems arise.

marinelife's avatar

Yes. They are not mutually exclusive.

wundayatta's avatar

I don’t think science requires “belief.” It requires evidence. Proof.

You can believe in God, but you can’t believe in science. If you “believe” in science, then you don’t know what science is. Science is never certain. It offers just probabilities and theories and evidence to support hypotheses. It is always provisional. We accept an explanation as most likely until a better explanation (i.e., one with more evidence to support it) comes along.

God requires belief because there is no evidence (in the scientific definition of evidence) to support that hypothesis. I.e., there is no reproducible evidence that is independently measurable and verifiable. All the evidence I have heard of for God is known by individuals. It is from personal experience. That can never be verified. There is is also conjectural evidence, such as the theory that the order we find in the universe could only have been created by an intelligence since it is too orderly to have happened through random or even natural processes. This last has been falsified, anyway.

So God and science are in two different realms, and really have little or nothing to do with each other, except that people keep on conflating them. I think that’s because few people understand what science is. You can believe in God. You can’t believe in science. If you do think you believe in science, then it isn’t science you are believing in. It’s the wrong word and the wrong idea and doesn’t fit with science.

Unbroken's avatar

You have the option of believing in anything you wish.

People may question that belief if advertised, as seen here.

Related note Joseph Campbell who believed in the necessity of myths, that they were unified with universal themes initially thought they were very compatible.

His later works seemed to embrace buddhism as at least church leaders seemed to make this theory problematic, though I don’t know he thought himself wrong or just that they were closeminded.

gailcalled's avatar

Yes because many people do.

LostInParadise's avatar

@wundayatta , What you can believe in is scientific method. The very idea of scientific method has only been around for a few hundred years. For those who accept it, it seems like nothing more then common sense, but there is nevertheless an assumption on the part of scientists that scientific method is the best way to understand the physical world.

Mariah's avatar

Believing in A god requires no further conclusions. It doesn’t have to contradict any science. Deism, for example. One can believe that a god set off the Big Bang and then left the universe alone. In this situation, all the science explaining what happened thereafter to bring the universe to the state it’s in today can be consistent with this view.

Believing in the Christian god is slightly more problematic because it’s got a whole book of conclusions you must also accept. If one takes the Bible literally, then evolution is not consistent (and yes, evolution is legitimate science and you’re using the fallacy of assuming the conclusion if you try to say evolution is not true because the Bible is true and the Bible contradicts evolution – where is your proof that the Bible is true?) and the Big Bang isn’t consistent and probably more. Christians who take the Bible as metaphorical will have less of a problem being consistent with science.

I wish religion and science weren’t viewed as enemies, because it causes a lot of devout people to have a knee-jerk hateful relationship with science. They don’t have to be enemies.

ETpro's avatar

Science has furnished no proof that God does not exist. Science isn’t even aimed at proving negatives, so it is unlikely it will ever furnish such a proof. There are things that science does prove that are at odds with things the Bible claims are true. So if you want to read the Bible as the literal word of a omniscient and omnipotent God, then you have to turn your back on science, or major parts of it.

The young Earth believers, for instance, assert that when the Genesis account of creation says a day it literally means a 24 hour period. They move from that assumption to the timeline given in the “bagats” in Chronicles (moving from Adam forward) and arrive at an Earth that has to be approximately 6,000 years old. That’s a patently absurd claim from a scientific point of view. We have masses of evidence showing that the Earth is at least 3.7 billion years old. Further, these same “geniuses” that claim they know day is meant literally in Genesis get to the prophecies of Daniel regarding the coming of a Messiah, and there they claim just the opposite. With no rhyme or reason for the change other than that the birth of Jesus being about 300 years too late, they claim that neither day nor week nor month nor year can be literally interpreted in Daniel’s prophecies, and they substitute alegorical time periods for each, carefully chosen to make the birth of Jesus match Daniel’s prophecies. Of course, orthodox Jews read Daniel and insert their own differing set of codes for each time period to support their claim that the time of the Messiah hasn’t even arrived yet, though over 2000 years have passed since the birth of Jesus. Who is right? Quite likely neither.

So literalists aren’t really literalists, they pick and choose to make things come out in a way they want them to. Science tells us there was never a flood so great that it covered the top of Mount Everest. Science tells us that no wooden ship (ark) could be built large enough to hold 30 million species of animals plus all plant species and enough food for all of them. Science also tells us that the ark’s dimensions (a cubit was the length of an average adult man’s forearm) would be many times too small to hold such a cargo, and yet it’s stated dimensions (about the size of today’s supertankers) would make it so large it would be impossible to build of wood. The water pressure against such a large wooden hull would collapse it. Such a vessel would have to have a metal frame to even survive in perfectly calm water.

So you have to believe that an omniscient God knew all these things, but for reasons of His own choosing, decided to dictate His word to archaic mankind with all these logical and factual errors in it to believe in science and the Christian Bible. But plenty of scientists have managed that feat. Still, it’s much easier to reconcile scientific truths and faith if you believe in a deistic concept of God, or in Buddhism.

poisonedantidote's avatar

@SuperMouse I’m not sure how someone could say such a thing, they are totally different.

Just take any scientist who believes in a god of some kind, you look at their scientific work, and it is all based on the scientific method, backed up with research and evidence. When it comes to their belief in god, they just shrug and say you don’t need evidence.

If you apply the same requirements of science to religion, you just can’t justify belief in a god without making big exceptions for the religious part.

The world of insisting on evidence, and the world of taking things on faith, are in direct conflict, they are two opposite systems of thought.

As for the bible being allegory, or metaphor, that is just modern nonsense. It was originally written to be 100% literal, and if you even dared to suggest otherwise you would have been stoned to death for it. The idea of the bible being allegory or metaphor, is just a poor excuse to keep the religion alive in a world where science has disproved most of the original claims.

The bible intends for you to literally believe the sky is a solid object called the firmament, it only ever became allegory and metaphor as an excuse to stay alive.

bookish1's avatar

@poisonedantidote : Got any citations for that?

jerv's avatar

@poisonedantidote It’s difficult to take a self-contradictory source literally, therefore, it must be taken as allegory.

Paradox25's avatar

Yes, as long as one doesn’t cherry pick scientific evidence to support their religious beliefs. Most theists that I know don’t allow their belief in a higher power to interfere with known scientific facts. It is dogmatic religious beliefs that are the problem, and not theism or religion in themselves.

poisonedantidote's avatar

@jerv It is only self-contradicting to people with an understanding of logic, a few 1000 years ago no one knew any better.

I would say, it is dificult to take a self contradictory source literally, therefore it is a big steaming pile of the stuff.

Even to this day people try to take it literally, you can bet your bottom dollar they took it literally originally.

As for a citation, I would point to the bible, and the rotten remains of those who were executed for blasphemy.

Does anyone have a citation from the authors stating it is allegory? or is it just based on what modern apologists have said?

Nullo's avatar

Certainly. The question is, which one are you using as your foundation?

SuperMouse's avatar

@poisonedantidote the Bible was written by men – men with an agenda. The men who wrote the Bible had an interest in scaring people into behaving a certain way. Of course those people would use their disbelief as a reason to punish them. Your argument is dubious at best.

poisonedantidote's avatar

@SuperMouse You mean to say the authors had an interest in making sure people took it literally? no exceptions? or death or torture?

@Nullo I agree. If your foundation is faith, then there is no conflict, you can take what the priest says on faith, and then take the scientists words on face value too, and there is no double standard. If however your foundation is the scientific method, then you can’t believe in a god without being inconsistent in how you determine what is true.

fremen_warrior's avatar

A good friend of mine is both an aspiring scientist and a declared catholic. She has no problem with it.

poisonedantidote's avatar

I’m not saying you can’t believe in both, I’m just saying you can’t do it consistently, unless you approach both science and religion from the faith angle.

SuperMouse's avatar

@poisonedantidote yep, I am saying that the people who wrote the Bible had an interest in people taking it literally. It is pretty frightening stuff when taken literally!

wundayatta's avatar

@LostInParadise I don’t think that is a correct understanding of the scientific method. The method makes no assumptions. It does not say it is the best. We make theories. We develop hypotheses to test the theories. We say this is the best explanation of events so far. That is all a scientist claims. They do not claim to be right. They just say it is the best explanation so far. Best being the one that explains most of the observed phenomena most accurately, and allows predictions to be made that are proven accurate by further observation.

A God hypothesis is pretty much useless as science. It does not make predictions that can be tested through observation, or that can be reproduced independently. God requires faith and belief, because everyone who uses the term, uses it differently. You have to have faith to believe that you are talking about the same thing.

Science doesn’t require belief or faith. It defines its terms as clearly as possible, and if there is a discrepancy, it works to further refine definitions so everyone can be absolutely clear on what they are talking about.

They are different worlds. Different mind sets. People conflate them because they appear to be talking about the same things, but they aren’t. God is about the world inside—the invisible world—at least at the moment. Science is about observable reality. God is about perception. God is the subjective made objective for political purposes. Science has nothing to say about that which can not be observed. Well, not quite nothing. .People speculate. But that is just curiosity. It is not knowledge.

God is about perceived knowledge. Science is about developing knowledge through observation. They are different worlds and do not mix. Why people insist on bringing them together, I don’t understand.

poisonedantidote's avatar

@SuperMouse Therefore the bible is supposed to be taken literally, as the authors intended.

SuperMouse's avatar

@poisonedantidote it is an allegory that the writers had a vested interest in people taking literally. That does not mean that it is the literal truth.

poisonedantidote's avatar

@SuperMouse Of course it is not the literal truth, it is a total madness beginning to end. I am not saying it is true, of course the bible is not true. But if the authors intend for it to be a literal claim, then it is a literal claim.

If I say “All chalk is green”, just because I am wrong does not make it allegory, it just makes it wrong.

The bible is intended to be literal, is wrong, and is in conflict with scientific discoveries, just as there is conflict between believing things on faith and believing things based on science.

If I find Hogwarts and Harry Potter, and discover they are real people, and that every word in the Harry Potter books is true, literally, the author still intended it to be a fictional story, and is therefore still a fictional story, and is just true by coincidence. It would not give you license to claim that the Harry Potter books were written as science.

Likewise, just because the bible has been proven wrong on things, it does not give anyone a license to claim it was intended to be allegory, when they obviously intended it to be taken literally, as the executions show.

JenniferP's avatar

@SuperMouse When did I say that God’s timetable and man’s are the same and when did I say that the “days” were literal days. You shouldn’t assume things about people.

desiree333's avatar

No, I do not believe that religion and science can co-exist. Religion suppresses critical thought and science. Can you imagine how much farther we would be in regards to technology if religion did not exist? A person who believes in God (at least the Christians), does not believe in evolution. These people believe that man came from a rib and some magical dust. I think it is incredibly demeaning to attribute all of human’s accomplishments and the natural wonders of the world to a (singular) supernatural deity.

JenniferP's avatar

Now I read someone else correcting me and telling me that the days weren’t literal days and again, when did I ever say that they were. I don’t buy all of the creationist’s arguments and I don’t even consider myself a “fundamentalist creationist.” People don’t put words in my mouth and try to argue against things that even I don’t believe.

ragingloli's avatar

see, this is what I meant by “arbitrarily reinterpreting scripture”. Handwavings like “oh this is just allegory” and “oh, those were not meant to be literal 24 hour days”. Trying to force the religion to comply with what we know to be true, instead of coming to the correct conclusion: “No, the religious claims are wrong. Not ‘allegories’, not ‘metaphors’, they are just wrong”

zenvelo's avatar

@poisonedantidote You keep saying the bible was written as literal truth, but it was actually written as “this is what we have been told is the truth.” Genesis is a written record of an oral tradition, as are many parts of the Old Testament. Talmudic scholars have argued for centuries over the Old Testament.

The Gospels were written down years after the original “authors” were dead. That is why they have different viewpoints of the same stories. And as we discussed on another thread a week or so ago, it’s why the Council of Nicea decided which Gospels would stay and which would go. Most thinking believers understand the difference, and it is why most mainstream Christian sects do not foist a “literal” interpretation on the bible.

SuperMouse's avatar

@JenniferP so explain how the Bible contradicts evolution. If you are being so incredibly misunderstood in this thread, maybe you can take a minute to explain why you say there is no such thing as macroevolution and why you refer to evolution as psuedoscience.

@desiree333 first, not all religion suppresses critical thought, many religions (among them Judaism and the Bahá’í faith) encourage critical thought. Second, many Christians do believe in evolution. Personally I think it is incredibly arrogant to believe everything begins and ends with humans on earth.

@poisonedantidote no matter how you slice it the Bible was written as allegory. The very fact that most of what is described is scientifically impossible proves that it is allegory. Just because a group of people wanted to convince folks to believe it as a literal truth doesn’t make it so.

@ragingloli, any written word is subject to different interpretations. There is no one way to read most things. The Bible and other holy writings are no different.

poisonedantidote's avatar

@SuperMouse Hello wall, how are you today.

The bible was written as a literal claim, the authors were just too stupid and uneducated to be logically consistent, and had no understanding of science. They obviously intended it to be taken literally, because they treated it literally.

Just because it is wrong on a couple of things does not automatically change the authors intentions and make it allegory.

The fact that most of what is described is scientifically impossible, proves that it is bullshit written by a moron, it does not automatically make it allegory, just because it is convenient to some people to look at it that way, it just does not work like that.

That is like saying… Oh, the scientists who originally said how the solar system works where wrong, it does not work like they said, therefore that proves they intended their work to be allegory. They did not, they intended it to be a literal scientific claim about how the solar system works, and they were just plain wrong about it.

The bible, was written by uneducated people, as a literal claim. Their being wrong does not make it allegory, it just makes them wrong.

If I say 2+2=800, it makes me a moron, it does not prove what I said is allegory, it just proves I have no idea what I am talking about.

If I say batman is real, it makes me deluded, it does not prove that I intended it to be allegory, it just suggests I’m a sandwich short of a full picnic basket.

If a 2000 year old retard, says the sky is a solid object, it does not prove that he intended his words to be allegory, it just implies that he is a moron who did not have access to a tall enough ladder.

The bible, is a literal book, because the authors intended it to be, the 1000’s of people they killed as heretics and blasphemers is evidence of that. Just because they are wrong, it does not make it allegory, it just makes it a mistaken literal claim.

Bill1939's avatar

This questions seems similar to the following:

“If the truth hurts, how does one accept that truth and learn to live with it?”
Asked by tedibear

It depends upon to what the truth is relative. In general, a truth hurts because it shatters one’s illusion. When someone you love turns out to be something quite different from what you thought they were, it is kin to death. Someone you thought you knew has ceased to exist, and a less desirable person is in their place. All of the stages of grief will apply. Conversely, a more complex understanding that convincingly refutes a simpler understanding will render the simpler understanding irrelevant, but with little if any angst over its demise.

Scripture reflects the society of the Middle-East two millennia ago. Higher wisdoms could only be conveyed through the limitations of needing to reflect cultural experiences through which an audience might relate to the message. The depth of the message becomes clearer as the listener becomes more knowledgeable. However, the amount the listener receives will always be but a small portion of that which is present.

SuperMouse's avatar

@poisonedantidote it sounds as though your entire argument is that the Bible has to be literal because the people who wrote it are stupid. That makes no sense. It was written as a way for people to try to control the behavior of others. The fact that people took it as the literal helped accomplish that.

poisonedantidote's avatar

@SuperMouse My argument is that the bible is a book of literal claims, because the authors said it was, and used to put to death those who disagreed.

The bible does not have to be literal because the authors were stupid, it is literal because they intended it to be literal, their stupidity is just coincidental.

SuperMouse's avatar

@poisonedantidote your argument is wrong so I’ll be done with it here.

poisonedantidote's avatar

@SuperMouse Don’t worry, if my argument is wrong, it just proves what I said is allegory.

SuperMouse's avatar

@poisonedantidote you are quite obviously a man of incredibly genius. :o)

LostInParadise's avatar

@wundayatta , I don’t want to draw this out much more, but look at what you are saying. Scientific method gives the “best explanation.” Historically, that is a very recent idea. Before the ancient Greeks, there was not even a concept of natural law. Everything happened due to actions of the gods. They did not speak of miracles in the same sense that we do. We speak of miracles as violations of natural law. You can’t speak of violations of natural law if there are no natural laws. The ancients thought of miracles as departures of the gods from their usual activities. For an interesting discussion of the Greek contribution, I highly recommend the book Uncommon Sense

The Greeks did not, however, believe in experimental science. They thought that natural laws could be intuited. It was not until around the Renaissance that the idea of scientific method really took hold. It is only when you are born into a culture of science, that scientific method seems like the most obvious way of doing things.

pleiades's avatar

@JenniferP Evolution is clearly explained and revealed. Evolution can be simplified as change to an organism over time.

Rarebear's avatar

@pleiades not exactly. Evolution does not explain how an organism changes over time but how a population of species change in response to environmental changes.

wundayatta's avatar

@LostInParadise I appreciate the history. It’s important to know where we have come from. Similarly, it is important to know where we are.

WillWorkForChocolate's avatar

It is entirely possible to believe both equally, as long as you remember that certain parts of both science and whatever religious beliefs you hold are completely false.

jerv's avatar

@WillWorkForChocolate A key difference is that science will admit that they were wrong and amend theories to conform with the evidence. I see no falsehood in saying, “The evidence is consistent with [insert theory here ] so we will treat it as fact until we have sufficient proof to the contrary. ”.
Religion tends to dismiss evidence much more readily and be less willing to change.

pleiades's avatar

@Rarebear What I understand is that an organsim can build physical traits in correlation to adaptability with it’s environment. At a grand scheme you are correct. At the very earliest stage I am correct. But thanks for clearing that up. I didn’t mean we know every single thing about evolution and the randomness of mutations, but evolution is evident.

JenniferP's avatar

@SuperMouse I am not going to explain how the Bible and evolution aren’t compatible and here is why: I am too dang busy. I still owe @ETpro an answer about the ten commandments from a couple of weeks ago. I have to email other people on another site as well. I don’t have time to go and research the answer although I have read arguments that show the Bible and evolution aren’t compatible many times. If I get caught up on things maybe I will come back to this question and do that. But I just want to say one more thing. Genesis is not allegorical. In the listings of the lineages in the Bible, Adam is always listed as the original man. There are other scriptures that mention Adam. It says in other parts of the Bible “Just as through one man sin entered into the world.” Also the flood story was literal. It is mentioned in 2 Peter 3.

JenniferP's avatar

@pleiades I know the definition of evolution and that it is supposed to be change in something a little at a time. And it is true to a point. But animals can not change into other animals. You will find variety in animals and changes over time but a cat will never become a dog.

tinyfaery's avatar

@SuperMouse

Just curious, how do explain the historical facts that are corroborated by other historical references? In college, the Bible was considered a primary document. I don’t see how all of it can be allegory.

I know many myths correspond to Bible tales. How do you tell an allegory apart from a historical fact.

Oh, my answer to the question is yes. There are millions of people who are proof.

wundayatta's avatar

@JenniferP You should educate yourself about the theory of evolution. That theory does not say a cat will become a dog. So you can take that off your list of straw men to hang up and shoot down. Neither does it say that animals change into other animals.

It says that each subsequent generation changes, and over many generations, you may find that you cannot even guess what the far preceding generation looked like by looking at the current generation. It is possible to see this in your life time by breeding certain types of fly that reproduce rapidly.

gasman's avatar

@wundayatta nailed it: You can believe in God, but you can’t believe in science. If you “believe” in science, then you don’t know what science is.

Most people easily make a “leap of faith” to enable religious belief in an unseen deity. Science, by contrast, requires physical evidence and logical consistency for its assertions about the world. I “believe” in scientific theory the way I “believe” that Oslo is the capital of Norway, even though I’ve never actually been there, though I’ve seen it on maps. I guess you might say I believe I have reliable sources of objective information.

Creationists always want to drag science down to their level with a kind of false relativism: “Science is just another belief system.” It’s a linguistic trap involving the word “believe,” reminiscent of a similar difficulty with usage of “theory” (“Evolution is just a theory.”) etc.

@JenniferP: Show me that life can come from non-life and I’ll believe y’all.
Well it’s not like anybody’s done it in a lab. And it might take billions of years. But I think the point is that we know life exists on Earth. And based on everything we know about astronomy, cosmology, geology, biology, and probably a few sciences I left out, it’s a simple inference that life could not have existed when Earth was still very hot. Even if life arrived from somewhere else (panspermia) it had to have arisen after the first generation of stars formed after the big bang. Scientifically it’s a given that abgiogenesis happened. The puzzle is to figure out how. Some progress has been made toward plausible hypotheses.

Rarebear's avatar

@pleiades I realize you may think I’m splitting hairs, but what you describe—i.e. an organism adapting to the environment, is not evolution. That’s adaptation. If the traits that allow that organism to adapt are able to be passed down to subsequent generations, and then those traits outcompete similar organisms that do not have those traits, then that’s evolution.

Rarebear's avatar

@JenniferP A cat does not turn into a dog. But if you go back millions of years you will see a common ancestor to both the cat and the dog.

jerv's avatar

@JenniferP You have demonstrated an utter lack of understanding of evolution, and of the Theory of Evolution.

“Show me that life can come from non-life and I’ll believe y’all”

Show me where the ToE alleges to say where/how life started. It only tries to explain how life has progressed since them; how species have diverged. Again, it makes no attempt to establish a first cause! The misconception that it does is why so many Creationists cannot abide by the ToE; they simply misunderstand it, and therefore it must be wrong.

As for cats becoming dogs, really?

Evolution is how humanity went from Homo sapiens idaltu to Homo sapiens sapiens. And sometimes there are forks, which is why Hominidae homininae has both us and chimpanzees; Hominidae homininae homo sapiens sapiens and Hominidae homininae panini pan. We are not chimps, but we came from common ancestors and diverged many, many, many generations ago.

If you refuse to believe that such a thing is possible, explain why most Africans have more skin pigmentation than Europeans. Humanity alone is genetically diverse, and there is much interbreeding which leads to many different combinations of traits. Now imagine that sort of thing starting many millions of years ago and continuing over many thousands of generations. Over time, that can lead to diversifying into utterly different species, much as Felinae has become Lynxs, house cats, Ocelots, Pumas, and many other species.

ragingloli's avatar

Evolution turned this
into this
in almost no time at all.

Rarebear's avatar

@ragingloli And a bit ironically, #1 would eat #2 for appetizers.

JenniferP's avatar

@wundayatta Do you really think that I am that stupid? I know a cat doesn’t become a dog and I know what the conjecture of evolution is and is not. I was just talking that way to make a point. Yes I know it is supposedly gradual change. When you guys refute me you have to do better than what you are doing. I have people trying to convince me that the earth wasn’t created in 6,000 years and I never said it was and then I talk facetiously and people take me literally.

Reading further, someone else believes that I think a cat will become a dog. You guys, I like a good debate but you have to actually argue with me over things I believe.

Response moderated (Unhelpful)
Response moderated (Off-Topic)
poisonedantidote's avatar

@JenniferP Declare what you believe then, I’ll always give you a run for your money on it. :P

I would have debated you on religion in the past, but you look like a nice person in your avatar. I think if you ever change it to something else I would give it a go.

JenniferP's avatar

I am reading through all of the responses here and I have found the third person that thinks that I believe cats evolve into dogs. Oh great! I will be remembered as the woman who thinks cats evolve into dogs. @poisonedantidote What does my avatar have to do with anything? If you want to debate me about religion go ahead. I think you didn’t debate me in the past because I was more familiar with that subject than this one. I probably intimidated you. Lol. I do know enough about this subject however to know it isn’t true. Macroevolution can’t be observed. Life can’t come from non life. The conjecture was propelled forward by a fraud and when the fraud was uncovered it had already been popularized. It is a science of peer pressure and individual ambitions. Scientists fight with each other over the details. Whenever there is a new discovery it gets big headlines. Buried at the bottom of those articles it says something like “Other scientists dispute these findings.”

Response moderated (Off-Topic)
Response moderated (Off-Topic)
Response moderated (Off-Topic)
Response moderated (Off-Topic)
SuperMouse's avatar

@tinyfaery i think of the Old Testament as basically allegory. I think the New Testament was based on some actual events, albeit a biased account.

poisonedantidote's avatar

@JenniferP I was just joking about your avatar.

The first thing, there is no such this as mirco and macro evolution, there is just evolution. The term macroevolution was invented by creationists as part of an attempt to ignore hard evidence on evolution. Evolution is easy to observe if you can find something with a short enough life span that reproduces fast enough, such as microbes. The term macroevolution is not used by anyone other than creationists.

For arguments sake though, lets say that the term macroevolution is a real term. Even then it has been observed many times.

An Argentine Dogo is a dog, so is a Pitbull, the two of them can breed and produce a mix of the two dogs, however, they are still dogs. A spider can’t breed with a dog, because they are totally different kinds of animal. They are different species.

So, for one animal, to eventually turn in to another kind of animal, it would have to evolve/change so much, that the new animal can no longer breed with the original animal that you started with. This is called speciation, and has been observed in both the micro and macro levels.

I am assuming you don’t consider a fruit fly to be a microbe or bacteria, that it is macro. Well, in fruit flies speciation has been observed and documented, as a simply google search or visit to the talk origins website would allow you to see.

I am also assuming, that you don’t consider beatles to be germs or microbes, that they too are macro. Speciation has also been observed and documented in beatles.

There have also been observed cases of speciation in plants, and of course in the micro world with bacteria, such as the case of nylonace, a bacteria that feeds on nylon, a man made product that has not been around for long.

Evolution has been observed in both micro and macro scales, from bacteria, to plants, to insects, and other creatures.

Sure, there are plenty of scientists who debate the fine details, but they do all agree that evolution is a fact, as it has been proven to be, with observation, experimentation, DNA evidence, and many other kinds of evidence. Scientists debating and disagreeing with details is just that, and saying that evolution is not true because they disagree on details, is like saying a house never burned down, because two different fire fighters disagree what ignition source lead to the house burning down, even if they disagree on the details, the house is still a pile of ash.

There are also obvious signs of evolution in many other animals. For example, birds have hollow bones so that they weigh less and can fly better. However, big flightless birds such as ostriches also have hollow bones. Why would a god, or any other kind of design, give an ostrich weak hollow legs? This is yet another sign of how they are linked via evolution, via the same purpose, to fly.

As for the origin of life, evolution has absolutely nothing to say at all about how life started. If you claim that life can’t come from non life, then you have a problem with the theory of abiogenesis, not the theory of evolution. Evolution does not explain the origin of life or try to either, just the diversity of life.

All cells, be they cells in your body, or bacteria, can read any DNA, evidence of a common ancestor.

The fossil record, you never find rabbit bones in precambrian layers of earth, ever, anywhere on the planet, ever, more evidence for evolution.

Humans have over 90% of their DNA in common with chimps, more evidence for a common ancestor.

You have things like bacteria getting used to antibiotics, and much more things.

If you still don’t believe in so called “macro” evolution, then lets get as macro as we can. Is an elephant macro enough? Well, elephants have started to evolve to not have tusks, so to avoid poachers. This is observed natural selection on the largest of scales.

There are also fish in the Hudson river, that have macro-evolved to be immune to toxic waste found in the water. More macro-evolution by natural selection.

I could go on forever, but will leave it at that for now. Evolution is a fact, and it gets harder and harder to deny all the time, the evidence and proof has been building up for centuries, and as time passes, we find more and more evidence all the time, at a faster and faster pace.

It is probably best to read up on it a bit more in detail, and see if you can explain it all away. After all, you did just admit you are not all that informed/familiar on this topic, so maybe it is not wise to outright deny it just yet.

jerv's avatar

@JenniferP How about we hit the rewind button, forget the “cat into dog” thing, and you give us your answer to one simple question that you have not addressed, yet one that I feel is the root of the problem.

Tell us where the Theory of Evolution gets into “Prime causes”; how does it address non-life becoming life? Personally, I have never seen any such arguments from the Evolution side, yet Creationists often cite the ToE as an attempt to disprove God precisely because of the erroneous belief that Evolutionists do get into the Prime Cause.

I know of many Christians who reconcile the divide simply because they believe that God set the stage for Evolution to occur, and I know of even more who resolve the conflict by saying that how it all began is a question for philosophers and theologists rather than biologists. However, it seems that you refute that such reconciliation is possible, and I wonder how that is.

Response moderated (Off-Topic)
Response moderated (Unhelpful)
Response moderated (Off-Topic)
Response moderated (Off-Topic)
jerv's avatar

@JenniferP You missed the point… again.

Evolution is to do with how life changes. Where does it mention how life began?

poisonedantidote's avatar

@JenniferP The reason I avoided debating you in the past, is because I knew you are the kind of person who would annoy me. You proved my point on this.

Evolution HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ORIGIN OF LIFE, buy some glasses and read.

Don’t piss in the fountain of knowledge with willful ignorance, the rest of us depend on it so we can enjoy the life we enjoy.

JenniferP's avatar

@poisonedanantidote-I did scan what you wrote. You don’t really think that “bacteria getting used to antibiotics” proves macroevolution, do you?

Also, “ALL” scientists do not believe in evolution as you say. Many don’t and that number is growing.

Response moderated (Flame-Bait)
JenniferP's avatar

I am not a “troll” and I would need to research that point about the elephants. But that still doesn’t prove that they gradually change and their descendants will be anything other than an elephant.

I just researched the answer to your elephant question. It was a ridiculously simple answer and doesn’t prove evolution at all. You can google it if you want the answer because I am too tired to convey the answer. If pressed further I suppose I can come back to this tomorrow and answer.

Actually, I won’t get back to you tomorrow because I don’t like your language nor do I like being called annoying. I am sorry that my ability to answer your questions annoys you.

I won’t “buy some glasses and read” because I just had Lasik eye surgery and discarded my glasses.

ragingloli's avatar

Genetics on its own proves “macro”-evolution to be correct.

JenniferP's avatar

@ragingloli-You say that but you don’t prove your assertion. Anyway, I am done here.

ragingloli's avatar

@JenniferP
That is where the damn link comes into play. Too lazy to click on it and read?

JenniferP's avatar

@ragingloli What are you talking about? Yes, at this time of night I am too lazy to read everything written here. You try cleaning at a hospital all day long. I scan a lot of what is written here. I doubt if any link will budge my thinking anyway. i am stubborn when I am right.

I know that this isn’t the general section or whatever it is called but why does everyone have to use such rotten words and language? Does it make your argument stronger?

Rarebear's avatar

Actually @jenniferp has a point. Evolution is NOT about how life was created. Just how it changes. It is not known yet how life was first formed.

God is as good a reason as any until the scientific answer is found.

JenniferP's avatar

@poison- I scanned some more of what you wrote in the long part. You are explaining things to me that I already know and telling me that spiders can’t produce offspring with dogs. Of course. Other things you are telling me I am well familiar with. I am a 46 year old woman and have read a lot in my life.

JenniferP's avatar

Thanks @rarebear-Nobody ever defends me on this site. It is always me against them because I am not afraid to stand by myself. Even when people tell me I am annoying and swear at me.

poisonedantidote's avatar

@JenniferP Read a lot, learned little it seems.

JenniferP's avatar

I am done here. Bye until next time. Peace.

ragingloli's avatar

@JenniferP
No, you are just stubborn.
But I shall summarise it for you, dear princess, so you do not have to strain your royal fingers to click the mouse button.

When a virus infects a host, it inserts its own genetic material in a random location within the genome of cells of its host to make that cell produce more viruses.
Sometimes the virus inserts its code into the genetic material of germ cells, like eggs and sperm, and when the insertion is not fully complete, the viral production does not commence.
When the host then reproduces, the inactive viral genes are then passed on to its offspring. Those viral genetic sequence are known as endogenous retroviruses.

Here is where that becomes proof for evolution: Humans share endogenous retroviruses with with other mammals, the most with other apes. E.G., they share identical viral gene sequences in identical positions within their genomes. That is a fact.
The only logical cause for this is that both apes and humans inherited these viral gene sequences from common ancestors that were infected by these viruses.

JenniferP's avatar

@ragingloli You are telling me stuff I already know. This princess has to go to bed. Oh brother. I see that poison is writing another response.

poisonedantidote's avatar

@JenniferP I think you meant to say, he is telling you things you have already ignored.

@ragingloli Please kick me in the balls.

JenniferP's avatar

Oh brother. Now @ragingloli is crafting a response.

ragingloli's avatar

@JenniferP
Go ahead and explain how shared identical viral gene insertions in identical chromosomal locations across multiple ape species including humans is not evidence for the fact that humans and other apes evolved from a common ancestor.
I will be waiting.

poisonedantidote's avatar

@ragingloli You are telling me things I already know. I don’t see how micro macro cherry pick ignore lalalalala I can’t hear you explains evolution.

What you said is too long to Kent Hovind your lalalala I can’t hear you micro macro ignore ignore peanut butter and bananas ignore, gawddidit.

JenniferP's avatar

@ragingloli-I said I was going to bed and since you guys are making fun I am going no further. One question and it is rhetorical so you need not answer. If you are on solid ground why would you need the crutch of sarcasm and mockery. Your sound arguments would be enough. Peace.

ETpro's avatar

@JenniferP That which is, is. That which is not is not. Style of assertion has no effect on that fundamental truth.

ragingloli's avatar

@JenniferP
I am tired, and when I am tired, encountering willful ignorance makes me especially cranky. I will not apologise.

JenniferP's avatar

@ETpro Thank you for showing up. You probably agree with their arguments but you are a little older and more mature and you are a welcome break. How have you been doing? How is Spoony your cat?

poisonedantidote's avatar

@JenniferP Spoony is a dog now, it evolved out of pure frustration, ironically disproving evolution in the act.

JenniferP's avatar

@poisonedantidote You told me to put on my glasses. what kind of glasses? Palm tree ones, like you are wearing?

poisonedantidote's avatar

@JenniferP That is too long to read, I’ll get back to you on it tomorrow. On second thoughts, I wont get back to you on it, I have a hole in the sand to stick my head in tomorrow.

* whips out full fledged asshole avatar *

JenniferP's avatar

Good night everyone. No harm meant on my part anyway.

Rarebear's avatar

Let me try a different tack. Why is belief in a deity anathema to understanding evolution? I have many friends of different religions who accept the truth of evolution. Many are devout Christians.

jerv's avatar

@JenniferP Still waiting…....

JenniferP's avatar

Rarebear-I am not going further with this debate for two reasons. My religion teaches that people should be mild mannered. I don’t mind a little debate and joking around but I don’t like some of the language and words that are being used. i am trying to have a sense of humor but I don’t approve of the word choices being mixed in with the debate. I also don’t know what is and isn’t anger and what is just joking and as a Christian I don’t want to be involved in anger.

poisonedantidote's avatar

@JenniferP How mild mannered is it to totally disregard centuries of scientific research without even a basic understanding of what you are talking about?, just do whatever you have to do to keep your head from exploding, if the ear plugs do the job, keep at it.

ETpro's avatar

@JenniferP I have a hernia making me crankier than usual. Spoony has always had a don’t-give-me-any-BS attitude. And getting to be an old lady has only bolstered that bitchiness. Gah, I really love that cat.

jerv's avatar

@JenniferP And all I want is a simple, direct answer.

Until you can cite where Evolution addresses the origin of all life (as in, “How life came from nothing”) then I cannot help but wonder how it is that you can believe that it does. And I know you do believe that, because if you didn’t, you would agree that Science and Religion can get along.

Then again, history shows that religion does not want to get along, and so far you have done nothing but add evidence to support the theory that religion is anti-science.

ragingloli's avatar

@ETpro
What kind of animal is a ‘hernia’?

JenniferP's avatar

So what are you guy’s favorite colors? Mine is purple.

poisonedantidote's avatar

@JenniferP Pink or Brown, depending on my mood.

JenniferP's avatar

What is the weather like where you are at? It is cold here.

poisonedantidote's avatar

@JenniferP If you want to chat you can PM me… I think the moderators are going to kill us all after they get over their hangovers. We have already given the poor buggers enough crap to clear up.

Cold.

@jerv Could really do with a direct answer, that would really go a long way.

jerv's avatar

@poisonedantidote Those last two responses tell me what I needed to know actually; there is no basis for her arguments, nor any real interest in dialog; not entirely unlike a troll. I’m almost willing to bet money that she won’t answer, with a side-bet that she cannot.

ETpro's avatar

@poisonedantidote & @jerv A perfect example of why i avoid asking questions in the General section as often as possible.

JenniferP's avatar

I might answer if you tone down your language and apologize. Remember that you are talking to a lady.

poisonedantidote's avatar

@JenniferP I honestly have no idea what you mean about toning down language. I am capable of talk that would make a seasoned soldier lose his lunch, but I don’t see anything anyone has said that could be seen as bad language, other than maybe the word “asshole” that I used in reference to myself.

EDIT: So far you have been asked what 2+2 is, and your answer has been “Q does not prove a number” and “I like turtles!”.

whitenoise's avatar

@jerv @poisonedantidote
Please apoloogize. You don’t have to mean it, but the rare chance that she’d actually going to answer @jerv‘s question should be worth it.

poisonedantidote's avatar

@JenniferP I apologize for any bad language, It was wrong and childish of me. Could you please answer the question, I don’t want to burn in hell for my ignorance, please answer @jerv so I can see the error of my ways and be saved.

JenniferP's avatar

Thank you for your apology. I will read the stuff over tomorrow and get back to you.

JenniferP's avatar

Wait. Whitenoise coached you. He said you don’t have to mean it. Therefore, you will get no answers from me.

Plus, you never answered my question. Does life come from non-life?

whitenoise's avatar

@JenniferP what if I apologize for that?

JenniferP's avatar

@whitenoise- you have already proven yourself disingenuine. You answer me. Does life come from non life? Yes or no.

poisonedantidote's avatar

@JenniferP I do mean it.

Plus, If I fail to see the error of my ways, I will burn in hell for all eternity. Does the bible not teach to spread the good word? and to save those who need saving? Is it not the Christian duty to help others? Please don’t let me burn, I could die tonight and go to hell for my wicked ways.

I feel alone and lost, I don’t know what to do, I feel so confused, if I could just see how evolution is wrong, by answering that wicked confusing question asked by @jerv then perhaps there could be hope for me yet.

Please don’t let me burn, please? :(

whitenoise's avatar

@JenniferP I don’t know, but I see no reason it couldn’t.
You mean to say that God cannot turn clay into life?

JenniferP's avatar

@ETpro I am glad Spoony is doing well. I have a couple cats too. They are adorable.

Rarebear's avatar

Abiogenesis is a hypothesis by which life can be created from non life. It has not yet been shown or proven.

JenniferP's avatar

@whitenise-Everyone with a science background knows it can’t and yet you say you don’t know. And you are treating me like I am dumb?

They have never been able to create life when they tried (they being scientists.)

poisonedantidote's avatar

@JenniferP If you answer @jerv and save me from hell, I will donate $100.00 to cancer research.

Rarebear's avatar

By the way, saying “I don’t know” is why scientists have a job. If we knew everything there would be no need for science. Scientists jobs are “I don’t know, but let me try to find out.”

whitenoise's avatar

@JenniferP
Sorry didn’t mean to treat you as if you’re dumb. I just responded to your statement.

BTW I am truly genuinely interested in your answering @jerv.

jerv's avatar

I am merely trying to get to the heart of the matter, and am a bit frustrated (though not surprised) that I have yet to hear anything but childish antogonism in response. I tried to start with a clean slate, and was rebuffed, as often happens in discussions like this.

JenniferP's avatar

Rarebear-One of the problems I am having is that I don’t recognize terms like abiogenesis but recognize the underlying arguments (mostly.) I have read certain concepts and what is being said sounds familiar but I don’t recognize certain words. @whitenoise-I am tired and at this point I have forgotten what exactly he asked. That is why I said that I will reread the stuff tomorrow. Maybe you are in a different time zone than I am.

whitenoise's avatar

@JenniferP yea…. I just woke up.

JenniferP's avatar

jerv-“childish antagonism” is a putdown. I got no apology and more mockery. Therefore you will get no answer.

poisonedantidote's avatar

@JenniferP $200.00 to cancer research if you answer @jerv and save me from hell.

@jerv You keep out of it, I am already probably going to burn for your fault, and @ragingloli ‘s fault.

I used to be a good Christian boy before I came to this site, I don’t know what you people have done to me. PLEASE SAVE ME!!!

JenniferP's avatar

It is really hard for you guys to be nice to me and apologize. You want me to answer your questions but you are withholding on me too.

Rarebear's avatar

Jennifer, Wikipedia has a good article on it. But you really should get to bed! :-)

JenniferP's avatar

poison-I forgot exactly what you asked me and for the millionth time will read over the stuff tomorrow. If you apologize I will answer tomorrow. Why are you going to burn, btw? Are you making assumptions that I believe in Hellfire?

whitenoise's avatar

@JenniferP
Can you please explain why you think the theory of evolution addresses the origin of life?
(as in, “How life came from nothing”)

JenniferP's avatar

Whitenoise-Answer the question that I asked you first. Have scientists ever created life? And it isn’t a theory. It is a conjecture.

And even if I can’t answer every last challenge that doesn’t mean that someone else can’t. Many people counter stuff you guys are bringing up all the time.

poisonedantidote's avatar

@JenniferP Can you please explain why you think the theory of evolution addresses the origin of life?

I just think god will burn me if I don’t give him credit for his creation, but I’m just so confused by @jerv ‘s question.

I was just going with the crowd, you know, to fit in, but now I’m scared. I think god will punish me, I’m so confused.

Sorry, please give me a moment, I have something in my eye.

whitenoise's avatar

@JenniferP what about the ‘youguys’?

I might believe God created life out of nothing, yet you want me to believe that is impossible.

You want to prove that it is impossible, by stating that if scientists cannot make it, it cannot be done.

edit: are you an atheist pretending to be religious in some devious plot to make religious people look silly?

JenniferP's avatar

@poison,-Sorry you lost the opportunity of having me answer because you won’t apologize and continue to cut. End of discussion. So how is the weather where you are at?Whitenoise-you didn’t answer my question.

JenniferP's avatar

Guys- I am truly done. Talk amongst yourselves.

poisonedantidote's avatar

@JenniferP I am so so sooo sorry. Please forgive me. If I send you a photo of me whipping myself opus-day style and donate $250.00 to cancer research, would you answer @jerv ? So I can clear my mind from confusion and re-establish my relationship with god.

JenniferP's avatar

Not an apology. sorry.

whitenoise's avatar

@poisonedantidote
Don’t be cheap….
Post that photo as a freebie, please.

pleiades's avatar

@JenniferP I want to be fair with you and not personally attack you. But you did indeed state this, “I know the definition of evolution and that it is supposed to be change in something a little at a time. And it is true to a point. But animals can not change into other animals. You will find variety in animals and changes over time but a cat will never become a dog.”

Your example of what you say you understand about evolution is stated in the last sentence is it not? So how are we the ones that are confused? Now this is confusing!

poisonedantidote's avatar

@JenniferP Just tell me how to apologize properly and I will. I just can’t think right, I’m in tears here.

JenniferP's avatar

Pleiades-That sounds very awkward. I know better than to mangle the English language like that and I can’t check back because there is so much back and forth here. if I did indeed write that, it was because I was thinking too fast. We all have moments like that where the words don’t come out right. And actually, I do think you are joining in the attack.

JenniferP's avatar

Poison-this is futile.

JenniferP's avatar

For the last time, I am not talking to you guys ever again.

pleiades's avatar

@JenniferP I’m not joining in the attack. Now I think you’re just acting paranoid. I remember I used to study with Jehovah’s Witness. A nice man would take me to his car and talk scripture with me. One day I remember he and 2 older ladies mentioned something a long the lines of what you had explained. (Something about an animal still being the animal it was named back then and it represented that same animal still.) It’s the same as what you are trying to poke at I believe.
I have not attacked you. And I take pride it not attacking anyone on Fluther so I’m offended.

JenniferP's avatar

@pleiades-You can see that they are attacking me therefore even joining in is an attack even if you don’t use the same language.

JenniferP's avatar

Poison-You want answers from me and you don’t even understand which religions believe and don’t believe in Hellfire.

poisonedantidote's avatar

@JenniferP As you can see from my photo, I used to be a member of opus dei and we used to believe in hellfire. I’m just so confused with all these liberal atheists poisoning my mind.

If I just knew how evolution tries to explain the origin of life, I could believe again.

Rarebear's avatar

Will everybody please back off on @JenniferP? She’s quite upset.

poisonedantidote's avatar

@Rarebear I am just joking around, literally sorry if I am upsetting anyone.

@JenniferP Sorry if I upset you, just messing around.

whitenoise's avatar

@Rarebear
Will do…
Sorry @JenniferP, I didnt want to attack you as a person. :-)

However… that photo of @poisonedantidote is well worth it. Please agree on that.

@poisonedantidote LOL

jerv's avatar

@Rarebear Why do you think I wanted to just rewind this whole thing to some point before it got out of hand and try again fresh?

I have no desire to offend; I merely wish for a simple answer to a simple question that, to date, nobody has answered, either in this thread, or in similar discussions I’ve had. And it’s a question that, if answered, will lead one directly to an answer to the original question at the top of the page.

JenniferP's avatar

Well you won’t get your answer @jerv because I am going to delete my account here. I have debated with people on here and enjoyed it til this point. Now it is just bullying. And if other people wouldn’t have stepped in you would probably be mocking me for saying this. I do feel stupid that I stayed around as long as I have on this thread. When I was insulted the first time I shouldn’t have said anything more.

LostInParadise's avatar

Why do questions on religion always seem to become arguments between theists and atheists? This is so tiresome.

Why are those who support evolution saying that life did not come from non-life? The theory of evolution says that this did indeed happen, and it apparently happened only once, since all living things use the same DNA coding structure.

@JenniferP , We are not going to convince you. Some questions for you to ponder, all of which have simple explanations in terms of evolution.

Why would God cause most living things to go extinct? We know from the fossil evidence that most plants and animals that have been on Earth are no longer here.

Why do we have vestigial organs like an appendix?. It serves no useful function.

Why would a benign God create diseases? Do only evil people become ill? Does not seem likely.

If we are able to create some form of bacteria in the lab, would you then say that evolution is possible? There are people working on that and it is not so farfetched that they may soon succeed. We can already transfer genes from one organism into a completely different one.

If you are willing to have an open mind on this, I recommend reading Why Evolution Is True, which you can download.

poisonedantidote's avatar

@JenniferP Please don’t delete your account. I enjoy your contribution to the site. I do skip over your religion questions, as do I skip over most religion based questions, but I enjoy reading your other questions and answers.

I have a very thick skin, it did not cross my mind that you could be getting upset over this. I was just messing around.

I was seeing it as some fun… if you look at some of my past questions, I have had people gang up on me too, I’m a just the kind of person that is not bothered by it, I did not stop and think that you would be taking it seriously.

I am disgusted by bullies, if that is how I came across, I honestly and sincerely apologize.

Please stay, your presence would be missed by me at least.

This will maybe sound silly, or creepy to you, but I am quite a dark person emotionally, and believe it or not, but seeing your avatar in questions with that big smile of yours does actually brighten up my day a little.

I did not intend to start the year by upsetting anyone. Sorry.

* reverts back to friendly avatar *

JenniferP's avatar

@Lostinparadise-Do you really feel it is necessary to chime in. In and of itself, your words are perfectly fine. I don’t mean that they make sense because they can be responded to. But do you really think it is nice to enter a contentious debate that is very hurtful?

Vestigial organs do have a purpose, btw. They have been proven to. Tailbones, tonsils and appendixes. I forget some of the purposes but I know tonsils have something to do with immunity.

Why would God create diseases? He didn’t. he created perfection and man sinned and brought imperfection upon himself.

whitenoise's avatar

@JenniferP I side with @poisonedantidote on his last post.

Please stay and I am indeed sorry if I joined a gangup on you that made you reach a point of giving up on this site. Even though I was truly interested in the underlying discussion as well, I didn’t give enough thought to our joint, negative, tone-of-voice.

Have a happy 2013!

pleiades's avatar

You know what, I’m sick of people arguing with pure emotion and turning the OP into something else and making it about themselves. If you say something that is incorrect and a majority of people are telling you it’s incorrect, then it must be incorrect. Own up to it. We can be wrong sometimes and be mature. I’ve been wrong it seems a thousand times, and it’s ok life goes on.

JenniferP's avatar

I decided to stay until I read pleiades rude response and will leave. I accept the other apologies. Bye folks.

DominicX's avatar

@jerv I agree. I’ve never seen an answer to it either. Because they don’t have an answer. And when you say “they don’t have an answer” they just say “you’re insulting me” and the argument is effectively over still with no answer. It’s kind of a loop in a way…

pleiades's avatar

How sad she left. Sometimes we shout out a point. And realize there was no point I guess.

poisonedantidote's avatar

@JenniferP I see you have left.

In case you are still reading this… I know I said I find you annoying before, but I find 99% of religious people, religious discussions and religion questions highly annoying, it was not just about you.

You will be missed, please consider coming back some time in the future.

All the best.

pleiades's avatar

“Why would God create diseases? He didn’t. he created perfection and man sinned and brought imperfection upon himself.”

Too bad she’s not here to explain how perfection goes wrong.

pleiades's avatar

Yeah this place got thrashed. Too bad was a pretty good question and was wanting to see how the two would go hand in hand. Some good quality answers overall though.

Rarebear's avatar

Aaaannd she left the building.

poisonedantidote's avatar

@Rarebear How did you know she was getting upset? was it a PM or something?

I thought she was “playing hard to get” so to speak, and enjoying it just as much as me.

If you are in contact with her, see if you can get her to come back.

Her missing presence is a bigger deal than her missing answers.

Kind of feel like an instigator here looking back on it all.

* hangs head in shame and goes for a walk *

Rarebear's avatar

Yup. She PMed me. I have no way of getting in touch with her.

Can I suggest that people watch this video?
http://vimeo.com/13704095

JenniferP's avatar

I tried to delete my account and I don’t know what is going on because it says it is deleted but i am still able to come here so am unsure of what is going on. First of all. thank you to the ones who are being nice. As far as @pleiades you are still acting awful.

As far as the debate I can’t believe that you guys are patting each other on the back and telling each other you made such excellent cases for your belief and I still can’t believe that you think I was copping out when I told you over and over that I was sick of the rudeness and I would attempt to answer the next day. You kept repeating “You can’t answer” even though I kept saying “stop being rude” and “I will answer when I am refreshed.”

As far as the astronomer who tells his audience that you can’t win people over by rudeness that is true. People who believe in creation would tell their audience the same. So that argument is true but the astronomer is incorrect that atheism is fact.

Why am I being told that I am ignorant when one of the people saying it, is telling me that I believe in Hellfire and I don’t. That is ignorance. And I have made many good responses. For one, appendices do serve a purpose according to some in the medical community. What about that and the other responses I gave? As far as the elephant and the tusks, I looked that up and there was a good explanation which I didn’t bother to repeat. But it was something like, that the leftover gene pool was the non tusk elephants because the other ones were hunted so much that they were more rare. I meant it when I said that I understand the arguments but may be challenged to articulate it in a way that makes sense.

I have read about the Galapago finches and various subjects to do with evolution. I have read about fruit fly experiments and so on. So as I said I am familiar with these subjects so when you talk about them I am not pretending that I am following you. I just may have to think in how I respond to it and need you to use simpler language and not all of the technical terminology.

And I don’t like people acting like I am stupid. I am more knowledgeable in some areas than others. I am not knowledgeable in science because of a gap in my high school years but I have since read up on evolution. I understand basic arguments and sometimes that is enough to know that something isn’t worthwhile. I am sure if I had someone here in this debate who had a scientific background, he could counter your arguments with ease. I have seen it done many times. However, I may have to do a little research or think about how to formulate an answer.

WillWorkForChocolate's avatar

Godfriggingdangit, why do you people have to be such assholes to other people? I see above me that @JenniferP is crafting, so that’s awesome to see she changed her mind. But seriously, some of you really need to chill the fuck out. I’m so tired of watching people leave because of this type of douchebaggery.

Please don’t leave, Jennifer.

poisonedantidote's avatar

@JenniferP Hi good to see you are still around.

Don’t get me wrong, I never said you believe in hellfire, more or less everything after the long post of mine was just messing around, I know it is hard to tell when all you have to go on is text, but I was honestly just yanking your chain.

The rest of the debate, we can just drop it, it is not that important.

As for rudeness, if that is how I came across, then I apologize. I would say I was blunt, not rude, it is just a personality trait of mine, I don’t sugar coat things.

I see how you can interpret things as rude, but please understand that we are likely operating on very different definitions of what is and what is not an insult. To me, saying someone is being ignorant, or is not listening, is just a statement, not an insult. If I was trying to be insulting I would have used actual insults, such as suggesting where to stick things and what to suck, that is my definition of insult.

If you look at @SuperMouse and me having our discussion, you will see that SuperMouse told me that “I am obviously a man of incredible genius” sarcastically suggesting that I am a retarded idiot. It did not upset me, I did not ask SuperMouse to apologize to me, I just took the insult, and even admired the sarcastic tone of it a little, as it gave me a bit of a chuckle. I see it as just part of the game.

I tend to assume people are like me, and as I can take it, I also dish it out at times. It is never anything personal.

If you look at my question about the police a couple of days ago, you will see another user telling me I am a immature punk, and that I should have my legs broken, and all manner of things. You know what I did? I gave that user a GreatAnswer on ever comment, and responded. When it was all over with, I forgot about it and moved on to the next question.

I guess what I am trying to say, is you just need to relax a little and learn to roll with the punches. Fluther is a very very VERY friendly website compared to most, if you can’t enjoy yourself here, I don’t know where you will.

What do I know about you? I know you believe in god, that you have doubts about evolution, and that you are around the age of 30–40 or so, and have seen your face, that is all I really know, so it is really quite impossible for me, or anyone else, to get personal with you.

I honestly thought, that you was just refusing to answer, because you was stringing us along as you had a laugh, I had no idea that it was upsetting you, if I had thought it was, I would have stopped the debate, just like I did when I was told it was upsetting you.

And, lets say hypothetically, that I was being personal, that I had some kind of bone to pick with you. Does it matter? I’m just some asshole that you are likely never going to meet or have to tolerate in your life. I have no authority over anything, and I just don’t have the power to affect your life in any way.

Anyway, I suggest we just forget about it all, and just overlook each other next time we meet in a religion based question. You can have your say on it, I can have my say, and we don’t even have to read each others answers. Then on the funny questions, we can interact, and laugh at each others jokes, and just be happy.

Please understand, that none of what I said was personal, and I did not intend to start the year by upsetting anyone. I hope you will accept my apology and stick around.

Have a good one Jennifer, hope to see you around.

fremen_warrior's avatar

@jerv and @poisonedantidote in that case let me join in the fun: LOOKY HERE! </warrior mode> :P

JLeslie's avatar

@JenniferP Just stop following this Q, don’t leave altogether. When jellies really start ganging up, sometimes just not engaging in the debate anymore is the best way. I don’t mean bail at the moment there is conflict, because we all usually learn something from debate, but eventually it sometimes gets mean, and then we should just take ourselves out of it.

dxs's avatar

When you see 144 new responses, you know shit went down.

JenniferP's avatar

@Jleslie You are right. I should have bowed out earler but then they would have said “She can’t answer and that is why she left.” It was stupid of me to care. @poison-Thank you for your apology. If I respond to your points, I will do it by email. There are several reasons why I think you shouldn’t have been “joking around” or whatever you called it. First of all, this is the general section. There are guidelines. Secondly, I am religious. That doesn’t mean that I don’t joke around but it does mean that I don’t like certain words to be used like a**hole. And I don’t like people talking in a condescending way. I don’t know you yet and in person you can tell how a person means things. Also, women are more sensitive than men (in general) so you don’t deal with them like they are another man.

XYZZYtja's avatar

I believe in science, but as far as we know it, science is unlimited so basicly anything is possible… What is God anyway, is it what we call the “being” that is a dimension higher than ours who exceeds the existence of time, then yes God exists… God has a different meaning for everyone, killing eachother to prove who’s right (having the better God to protect their people) might just actually make sense for believers…

jerv's avatar

@JenniferP Don’t take what I say too personally either. Anybody who knows me knows that I am a rather impatient person who doesn’t handle frustration well, and it is frustrating when I feel my progress is blocked, whether it be by some asshat doing 53 MPH in the left lane of I-5, or by somebody who halts progress towards resolving an issue by stubborn refusal to answer a simple, important point.
However, to my mind, you did paint a big target on your chest when you called evolution “pseudoscience”. What is unscientific about a theory that fits with all observed facts and has yet to be utterly disproven? Even if you take the religion-vs-science angle away, the sheer semantic inaccuracy there is offensive; almost on par with “nigger” in my eyes.
I do joke around a bit, but not when I am trying to actually accomplish something, as I was here. I’ve tried to be nice, which is extremely difficult for me when faced with stubborn evasiveness and petulance. Like @poisonedantidote, I also do not sugar coat things, but for a slightly different reason; I play to my strengths and leave tact for the neurotypicals.
Also, I deal with women as if they were human beings. I’ve seen tough women, and sensitive men, so I don’t see what relevance gender has here. Don’t expect me to walk on eggshells (not that I ever do anyways) just because you lack a Y-chromosome.

DominicX's avatar

@jerv That’s another thing. You can’t come into a question like this calling evolution “pseudoscience” and expect no response. It would be as if I came into this question and said “you can be spiritual and believe in science, but scientists don’t believe in God (fairy tales)”. And yes, I know people will say “God is more important than evolution”, but guess what, to some people who don’t believe in God, God isn’t important to them and maybe evolution is more important (not suggesting they are viewed in the exact same way, but simply significant to different people). Calling evolution “pseudoscience” and religion “fairy tales” and homosexuality “perversion”, etc. I see it happen all the time. It’s deliberately meant to get a reaction most times and if it’s not, don’t be surprised if you do get a reaction.

JenniferP's avatar

@jerv-Don’t ever compare someone’s use of the word “pseudoscience” to “nigger.” There is no comparison. Further, I find it just as offensive when people call evolution “science” as you do when I say “pseudoscience.” Plus my word “pseudoscience” diminishes this conjecture but some of what you guys were saying diminishes people. And also I would never brag about lacking tact. Further, you can’t deny that women in general (and if you read over what I said, I used the words in general) are much more sensitive than men. That is a scientific fact. They are generally wired differently. I acknowledged already that there are exceptions. However, if you come across sensitive men or tough women then you can adapt to the individual. And even then, with the “tougher” people you may use a more direct approach but you you still should be polite. You say “Don’t expect me to walk on eggshells just because you lack a Y-chromosome.” I would imagine that if you go around treating women like little men, that you have a hard time finding dates. My use of “pseudoscience” is no different than others calling creation “pseudoscience” or calling evolution “fact.” They are all dogmatic words which can raise ire but at the same time are not insults. Seeing that I am one against many, you should be able to handle it. Interestingly, I got beat up by Fundamentalists on another site, in a very similar way to this conversation only the subjects were very different. They were mad that I didn’t believe in Hellfire and that I knew about the dangers of blood transfusions. It is just like here. I am outnumbered and it is as simple as that. Just a different argument. If one of those Fundamentalists was here you guys may gang up on them. When they are together they may gang up on you. What makes people buy into one argument often is simply that more people are pushing it.

jerv's avatar

@JenniferP Maybe I get a little too offended by what I perceive to be willful ignorance, blatant misinterpretation, and anybody more flippant than myself (I can be pretty bad in that respect, so anybody worse than me there must be horrible!), but I honestly do feel almost the same level of offense. If you cannot even see why then that is simply because your mind does not work like mine… and unless you are autistic yourself, it won’t.

As you have no longer have a PM box, I cannot give you the details (I have no wish to clog the thread with a totally irrelevant wall-o-text), but I feel you need to do a little research to find why adapting to the individual, drawing distinctions, and the like isn’t my strong suit. If you want to talk “wired differently”, then you should try to see how I am wired. Doing so will make me much easier to deal with. Suffice it to say, I do not brag about lacking tact, I merely state the facts. Again, do a little research. As for your dig about finding dates, that hasn’t been an issue for over 15 years; I am happily married to someone who understands and accepts me despite my lack of tact; she knows what sort of person I really am.

Now to task;

Creationism is philosophy/theology, and does not even make a nod to provable evidence or repeatable experimentation; therefore, it does not fit with “science” even if if you add the Pseudo-” prefix. I am not saying that it is bunk, but it is about as relevant to evolution as the price of milk. Evolution is merely about life changing, not being created.

As noted above, some things fall within the realm of science while others are more metaphysical, or at least do not lend themselves to experimentation and peer review well enough to qualify as “science”, pseudo or otherwise. How life began falls into the latter category; science can only answer as to what has happened since the beginning, and (to my knowledge) has yet to even attempt to do otherwise.

I have no malicious intent unless you feel gravely threatened by my persistence in getting you to answer one simple question. I have no desire to “go with the flow” as my opinions are determined by my thoughts and not by consensus.

FWIW, I am an Agnostic as I believe that there are things that the human mind cannot understand, most notably the truth behind the Big Bang and the start of life. Nothing causes itself, unless the laws of Cause and Effect are mind-blowing beyond the limits of human comprehension. How life came to be is a question I leave to intellects far greater than any mortal… assuming that such intellects exist, which I have no proof/disproof of. And that is also why I feel that God and Science can coexist peacefully; they serve different purposes that are only contradictory when one side declares a Jihad against he other.

So, do you wish to answer my question and continue in a respectful manner, or do you wish to continue making yourself a victim, or do you wish to remain flippant, or just wander off without even attempting to clear your name and thus leaving us with yet another example of pious people behaving badly? Personally, I favor respectful discourse and sticking around until there is a way to part amicably even if no agreement (other than agreeing to disagree) is reached. I would like it if you showed enough respect to answer my simple question, and I think that doing so may also give people a better opinion of you and (by association) all religiously-minded people.

Rarebear's avatar

@JenniferP Repeating that evolution is pseudoscience does not make it so (there is a name for this logical fallacy, but I can’t remember what it is). The theory of evolution is no more pseudoscience than the theory of gravity, germ theory, the theory of relativity (which is related to the theory of gravity), quantum theory, and global warming. Pseudoscience would be exemplified by astrology, cryptozoology, crystal healing, and homeopathy.

You may not like it but EVERY time you say that evolution is pseudoscience, you will be called on it.

Take it from me, a wizened middle aged man. Try to take the emotion out of it and understand that this is an anonymous online web forum. It’s not worth getting upset about. Some of us are snarky, some pedantic, some sarcastic, and some mean. But ultimately, this is a community that we all come back to, and every individual adds a little to it.

Stand your ground if that’s what you want, but know that those of us who understand science will stand our ground as well. But my advice is to use this opportunity to learn.

wundayatta's avatar

I can’t believe you guys are playing @JenniferP‘s little flirtation game. Well, have fun, if it amuses you.

Rarebear's avatar

@jerv I don’t agree that humans can not understand the start of life or the Big Bang. We just don’t understand them YET.

JLeslie's avatar

@wundayatta I don’t think she is playing a game.

jerv's avatar

@Rarebear That is your prerogative. Personally, I believe that things we don’t understand yet are a different category; that is where I would but faster-than-light stardrives and time machines. Still, this world is big enough for multiple viewpoints.

ragingloli's avatar

@jerv
Personally, I believe that things we don’t understand yet are a different category;
Yet you have no way to determine whether something we do not know is something we “do not know yet” or something we “will never know” beforehand.
You do not even know if there even are things that are unknowable.
But here is the thing: It is always better to assume that unknowns are things that are not yet known, because only by research will you even get the chance to find out.
If you just assume from the get-go that something is unknowable, you will not even try to find out, and you will stay forever in the dark.

jerv's avatar

@ragingloli Where the line is drawn depends; if someone else has roughly similar beliefs to mine, they, may have different ideas on where that line is. That doesn’t even get into what is knowable by humanity but not by me.

JenniferP's avatar

@wundayatta That is a rotten thing to say that I am playing a “flirtation game.” It sounds like you have issues with women and you are projecting your feelings onto me without even knowing me. Maybe you had problems in a past relationship, I don’t know. If you are going to psychoanalyze people you should get a degree. Even then it will take maybe 10 years before you are qualified and then you will have to meet the person face to face before you can decide the whys and wherefores of their actions. And even then you may be wrong. I think you have issues with women. How judgemental. @jleslie-Thank you for defending me. I am a middle aged religious woman. I am not trying to pick up guys on this site.

JenniferP's avatar

Just because I get in a debate over evolution and am a woman, that is supposed to mean that I am “flirting.”

You want to talk about double standards. I didn’t say anything suggesting anything sexual or express any interest in anyone. I just talked about evolution. But @wundayatta has a naked picture of someone’s derriere as his avatar. How does he get away with having a crude, sexual picture as an avatar but I am the one who is hitting on men.

Response moderated
Response moderated
JenniferP's avatar

I am not a kid and I don’t care what you think of me.

gailcalled's avatar

^^^You can’t have it both ways. You cannot choose when you care and when you don’t.

The whole point of private messengering is just that.

Response moderated (Personal Attack)
JLeslie's avatar

PM’s are private. Meaning for those two people only. Telling what was said on a public Q without permission from the party is breaking a trust/secret. Sometimes the PM is not really a secret, it is just said via PM to not derail the Q, which many people seem to have a big problem with even in social.

WillWorkForChocolate's avatar

But a douchebag PM like that, in my honest opinion, needs to be called out. Who the fuck does he think he is to treat her that way? Frankly, I’m appalled that y’all are whining about her mentioning the PM, instead of agreeing that he is out of line.

As I said, he’s done this before and he will do it again. I’m glad she brought attention to it.

JLeslie's avatar

@WillWorkForChocolate I did call @wundayatta out. I think he is being quite awful to her, along with some others.

WillWorkForChocolate's avatar

That’s fine, but I don’t understand the attitude about “she shouldn’t have mentioned the PM because it was supposed to be private”. Who cares? What he did doesn’t deserve privacy. Lots of people do things in private, so other people can’t see them acting like a douchebag, it doesn’t mean attention shouldn’t be called to it.

She’s not being a tattletale, she’s drawing attention to someone who has now caused multiple people to leave with bullshit like that, and I applaud her for it.

JLeslie's avatar

@WillWorkForChocolate I looked at it more as she is new and may not realize the expectations among the collective for PM’s. I was not trying to be critical of her, rather inform her of the typical expectation. I probably should have done it on a PM myself.

Rarebear's avatar

Okay, back on topic, I think that @ragingloli said it exactly right in the response to @jerv. If you go around saying things are unknowable, then yes, they will be unknowable. But if you say, “Gee, I wonder how THAT works?” and then figure it out, then that’s science.

JLeslie's avatar

@Rarebear Exactly. I think the religious people who reject science or don’t understand it think that was already done. It isn’t a mystery to them, there is no reason to seek an another answer, they know how it works, God did it. I think this is a mi ority of people personally. I ahve Evangelical Christian friends who are biologists, biomedical engineers, they don’t reject science.

Response moderated (Personal Attack)
jerv's avatar

Just to clear something up, I place the limits of comprehension at those things that no science can handle. We may someday open up inter-dimensional travel or discover that magic is real and develop Thaumatology the same way we did Physics, but while we can prove certain things well enough to clear up all doubt, I sincerely believe that there are others that are unprovable and therefore unknowable.

Response moderated (Personal Attack)
jerv's avatar

Can’t we all just get along?

wundayatta's avatar

Sorry, @JenniferP, but you weren’t debating the issues. You were side tracking it over and over with irrelevancies. Which is fine. Flirting is fine, too. I don’t have a problem with you saying what you said. I was just a little surprised that there were several men who were falling for it.

I wasn’t attacking you and I’m sorry you felt that way. Please come back.

Response moderated (Flame-Bait)
cookieman's avatar

In four-plus years, I can’t say I’ve ever seen a jelly, no matter how poor her argument, be treated so badly.

Wow.

WillWorkForChocolate's avatar

It’s sad, but I HAVE. By the same people.

DominicX's avatar

It’s always interesting seeing underlying tensions surface on this site; since we’re not allowed to insult without being modded, things build up and fester and then they come out. Anyway, just dropping by ;)

augustlan's avatar

[mod says] This has gotten way out of hand and this thread is a train wreck. There’s nothing constructive to come of continuing it, so we are going to close this discussion.

This discussion has been archived.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther