Science Vs. Religion

[QUOTE="syorks"]doesn't make it not true. i provided a possible explanation which is all thats required. Atrus

God sustaining plants in the absence of photosynthesis is not an explanation, it's a made up conjecture so that you don't have to give a credible answer.

If there was an alternative that you knew you'd have given that, without one, you fell back to "God did it". You didn't even manage to explain how God did it.

How is your explanation any more believable than if someone said Cthulhu helped sustain the plants?

[QUOTE="Atrus"]

[QUOTE="syorks"]doesn't make it not true. i provided a possible explanation which is all thats required. Fireball2500

God sustaining plants in the absence of photosynthesis is not an explanation, it's a made up conjecture so that you don't have to give a credible answer.

If there was an alternative that you knew you'd have given that, without one, you fell back to "God did it". You didn't even manage to explain how God did it.

How is your explanation any more believable than if someone said Cthulhu helped sustain the plants?

[QUOTE="Atrus"]

[QUOTE="syorks"]doesn't make it not true. i provided a possible explanation which is all thats required. Fireball2500

God sustaining plants in the absence of photosynthesis is not an explanation, it's a made up conjecture so that you don't have to give a credible answer.

If there was an alternative that you knew you'd have given that, without one, you fell back to "God did it". You didn't even manage to explain how God did it.

How is your explanation any more believable than if someone said Cthulhu helped sustain the plants?

With what? Magic? The God of the bible is detailed using mechanisms to cause things, rain to flood, man from dust, woman from rib, all to appease the desert theology of how the world works.

If God could have done something by magically making it so, it certainly could have saved itself the effort of making the earth in steps and instantaneously magicking everything as is in a second. To throw your question back at you, you would think an all-powerful being should be able to do something like that... It doesn't, instead it appears to rely on cause and effect.

[QUOTE="Fireball2500"][QUOTE="Atrus"]

[QUOTE="syorks"]doesn't make it not true. i provided a possible explanation which is all thats required. mig_killer2

God sustaining plants in the absence of photosynthesis is not an explanation, it's a made up conjecture so that you don't have to give a credible answer.

If there was an alternative that you knew you'd have given that, without one, you fell back to "God did it". You didn't even manage to explain how God did it.

How is your explanation any more believable than if someone said Cthulhu helped sustain the plants?

[QUOTE="Fireball2500"][QUOTE="Atrus"]

[QUOTE="syorks"]doesn't make it not true. i provided a possible explanation which is all thats required. Atrus

God sustaining plants in the absence of photosynthesis is not an explanation, it's a made up conjecture so that you don't have to give a credible answer.

If there was an alternative that you knew you'd have given that, without one, you fell back to "God did it". You didn't even manage to explain how God did it.

How is your explanation any more believable than if someone said Cthulhu helped sustain the plants?

With what? Magic? The God of the bible is detailed using mechanisms to cause things, rain to flood, man from dust, woman from rib, all to appease the desert theology of how the world works.

If God could have done something by magically making it so, it certainly could have saved itself the effort of making the earth in steps and instantaneously magicking everything as is in a second. To throw your question back at you, you would think an all-powerful being should be able to do something like that... It doesn't, instead it appears to rely on cause and effect.

[QUOTE="mig_killer2"][QUOTE="Fireball2500"][QUOTE="Atrus"]

[QUOTE="syorks"]doesn't make it not true. i provided a possible explanation which is all thats required. Fireball2500

God sustaining plants in the absence of photosynthesis is not an explanation, it's a made up conjecture so that you don't have to give a credible answer.

If there was an alternative that you knew you'd have given that, without one, you fell back to "God did it". You didn't even manage to explain how God did it.

How is your explanation any more believable than if someone said Cthulhu helped sustain the plants?

[QUOTE="Fireball2500"][QUOTE="mig_killer2"][QUOTE="Fireball2500"][QUOTE="Atrus"]

[QUOTE="syorks"]doesn't make it not true. i provided a possible explanation which is all thats required. mig_killer2

God sustaining plants in the absence of photosynthesis is not an explanation, it's a made up conjecture so that you don't have to give a credible answer.

If there was an alternative that you knew you'd have given that, without one, you fell back to "God did it". You didn't even manage to explain how God did it.

How is your explanation any more believable than if someone said Cthulhu helped sustain the plants?

[QUOTE="mig_killer2"][QUOTE="Fireball2500"][QUOTE="mig_killer2"][QUOTE="Fireball2500"][QUOTE="Atrus"]

[QUOTE="syorks"]doesn't make it not true. i provided a possible explanation which is all thats required. Fireball2500

God sustaining plants in the absence of photosynthesis is not an explanation, it's a made up conjecture so that you don't have to give a credible answer.

If there was an alternative that you knew you'd have given that, without one, you fell back to "God did it". You didn't even manage to explain how God did it.

How is your explanation any more believable than if someone said Cthulhu helped sustain the plants?

You ever thought that God gave the plants enough energy to survive for the time needed?Fireball2500

How? See, the biblical creation myth like other similar myths doesn't take the easy way out and say, God willed it and things were. Instead it tries to take a mechanistic step in how things came to be. However in those steps, we now see a lot of absurdity and to appease that absurdity you're making wild conjectures as to what was done.

Was it magic or was it a mechanism? Your God is portrayed using both at various times. What you fail to provide is an explanation and 'God did it' is not a sufficient explanation because it fails to address how. Beneath it all lies the one fundamental answer; You don't know how existence came into being, only a cop out answer that meets your level of curiosity.

[QUOTE="Fireball2500"][QUOTE="mig_killer2"][QUOTE="Fireball2500"][QUOTE="mig_killer2"][QUOTE="Fireball2500"][QUOTE="Atrus"]

[QUOTE="syorks"]doesn't make it not true. i provided a possible explanation which is all thats required. mig_killer2

God sustaining plants in the absence of photosynthesis is not an explanation, it's a made up conjecture so that you don't have to give a credible answer.

If there was an alternative that you knew you'd have given that, without one, you fell back to "God did it". You didn't even manage to explain how God did it.

How is your explanation any more believable than if someone said Cthulhu helped sustain the plants?

[QUOTE="Fireball2500"]You ever thought that God gave the plants enough energy to survive for the time needed?Atrus

How? See, the biblical creation myth like other similar myths doesn't take the easy way out and say, God willed it and things were. Instead it tries to take a mechanistic step in how things came to be. However in those steps, we now see a lot of absurdity and to appease that absurdity you're making wild conjectures as to what was done.

Was it magic or was it a mechanism? Your God is portrayed using both at various times. What you fail to provide is an explanation and 'God did it' is not a sufficient explanation because it fails to address how. Beneath it all lies the one fundamental answer; You don't know how existence came into being, only a cop out answer that meets your level of curiosity.

[QUOTE="Atrus"]

[QUOTE="Fireball2500"]You ever thought that God gave the plants enough energy to survive for the time needed?Fireball2500

How? See, the biblical creation myth like other similar myths doesn't take the easy way out and say, God willed it and things were. Instead it tries to take a mechanistic step in how things came to be. However in those steps, we now see a lot of absurdity and to appease that absurdity you're making wild conjectures as to what was done.

Was it magic or was it a mechanism? Your God is portrayed using both at various times. What you fail to provide is an explanation and 'God did it' is not a sufficient explanation because it fails to address how. Beneath it all lies the one fundamental answer; You don't know how existence came into being, only a cop out answer that meets your level of curiosity.

[QUOTE="mig_killer2"][QUOTE="Fireball2500"][QUOTE="mig_killer2"][QUOTE="Fireball2500"][QUOTE="mig_killer2"][QUOTE="Fireball2500"][QUOTE="Atrus"]

[QUOTE="syorks"]doesn't make it not true. i provided a possible explanation which is all thats required. Fireball2500

God sustaining plants in the absence of photosynthesis is not an explanation, it's a made up conjecture so that you don't have to give a credible answer.

If there was an alternative that you knew you'd have given that, without one, you fell back to "God did it". You didn't even manage to explain how God did it.

How is your explanation any more believable than if someone said Cthulhu helped sustain the plants?

....Look, I'm done. I can tell we all believe different things, and it's obvious that when different beliefs are clashing, there will always be an arguement. I don't want that.The questions you people have asked have good logic, I respect that. For the question of how water got there, I'd say God-sent rain. For the energy, I'd say they were most likely built(the plants)after the sun was made. It makes sense.

I won't change what people don't want to be changed unless God makes me do the oppisite.

And for those who say God or Christiansare hating, I'll give you this:

I John 3:11 in The Message Remix Bible: For this is the orginal message we heard: We should love each other.

To me(Not part of the verse), that means that if Christians hate other people, that means that their title of Christians could be in question.

I don't know what the whole deal with this stuff is, but it made me laugh.

[QUOTE="SilentFireX"][QUOTE="Loonie"]

Well there are certain parents who dont want their kids taught evolution. Some crazies actually take the bible literally, which is quite problamatic if you actually read the bible.

But by and large most christians are sort of half hearted christians. They like the bit about god, jesus, heaven and the good samaritan but most just ignore the parts that talk about whoring your daughter.

mig_killer2

Yes that actually does sound better. Not every Christian is a young earth creationist i'm an old earth creationist. And i personnally believe in the Bible when it says God created man in his own image it is refering to man having a spirit. Just my opinion with no evidence.

[QUOTE="Fireball2500"][QUOTE="mig_killer2"][QUOTE="Fireball2500"][QUOTE="mig_killer2"][QUOTE="Fireball2500"][QUOTE="mig_killer2"][QUOTE="Fireball2500"][QUOTE="Atrus"]

[QUOTE="syorks"]doesn't make it not true. i provided a possible explanation which is all thats required. mig_killer2

God sustaining plants in the absence of photosynthesis is not an explanation, it's a made up conjecture so that you don't have to give a credible answer.

If there was an alternative that you knew you'd have given that, without one, you fell back to "God did it". You didn't even manage to explain how God did it.

How is your explanation any more believable than if someone said Cthulhu helped sustain the plants?

Ground and sky.

Science and religion:They never condescend each other in any path.

Science simply tells us about the universe.

I'm study in a school and study science,there are over 30 people in my class and most of them are muslims,chirstians and other religion...Does this mean that they are all enemies of God?

How can you expect to believe this rubbish?

What people dont understand is that religion are science are to be taken seperately-one should never contradict the other..

FOr most people=religion is what they have to look forward to.People want something to believe in. THey want to believe in the fact that something good will happen to them when they die..no one knows what happens when you die..do you?

Have you ever believed what might happen?

THis is why people follow religion-THey want somehting to lok forward to something in their life...thye dont want to hear how worhthless life is..it isnt worthless

Life is what you make it to be.

There are a lot of different religions in this world..with different languages..they all have on common thing..salvation

PLus,you know what-no one can be blamed for thier actions towards anything.Whether you are muslim,chrisitan or whatever the majority should never be blamed for what one person does. Just because people can't see God doesnt mean there isnt one. There might not even be one-we cant see it now,can we?

We cant see a lot of stuff in this universe now but we do know it's there.

Learning science is important in understanding how OUR universe works...this is our world and not "mine" or "yours"

if we want to achieve a common goal we must work together to do what we want and not blame each other just because of our religions..I practise my religion..does this mean i am some fanatic bent on killing everyone and shouting "oohh blasphemy or blah blah blah..."..I mean come on.

Religion=Religion and

science=Science

Those two shouldnt mix,

just like oil and water

What i'm simply trying to say is that believe in your own religion and mind your own business. People have their life and if they want to believe in soemthing let them believe in it

[QUOTE="mig_killer2"][QUOTE="Fireball2500"][QUOTE="mig_killer2"][QUOTE="Fireball2500"][QUOTE="mig_killer2"][QUOTE="Fireball2500"][QUOTE="mig_killer2"][QUOTE="Fireball2500"][QUOTE="Atrus"]

[QUOTE="syorks"]doesn't make it not true. i provided a possible explanation which is all thats required. syorks

God sustaining plants in the absence of photosynthesis is not an explanation, it's a made up conjecture so that you don't have to give a credible answer.

If there was an alternative that you knew you'd have given that, without one, you fell back to "God did it". You didn't even manage to explain how God did it.

How is your explanation any more believable than if someone said Cthulhu helped sustain the plants?

Ground and sky.

oh, and where did the water go?

If people who are religious, believe God created the universe. Then why don't we not see like a huge portion of the population who is religious not letting their kids take science? I know more thenhalf of all my classes contain religious people, but everyone one of then is studying science, and don't they see something weird about their religion and the fact that science is proving then wrong?krystians

science is required to graduate. not all science contradicts religion. just the science that make believe like carbon dating, evolution, and many others.

[QUOTE="syorks"][QUOTE="mig_killer2"][QUOTE="Fireball2500"][QUOTE="mig_killer2"][QUOTE="Fireball2500"][QUOTE="mig_killer2"][QUOTE="Fireball2500"][QUOTE="mig_killer2"][QUOTE="Fireball2500"][QUOTE="Atrus"]

[QUOTE="syorks"]doesn't make it not true. i provided a possible explanation which is all thats required. mig_killer2

God sustaining plants in the absence of photosynthesis is not an explanation, it's a made up conjecture so that you don't have to give a credible answer.

If there was an alternative that you knew you'd have given that, without one, you fell back to "God did it". You didn't even manage to explain how God did it.

How is your explanation any more believable than if someone said Cthulhu helped sustain the plants?

Ground and sky.

oh, and where did the water go?

Fine, there was a water canopy covering the earth at first and when the flood happened God let it fall. Thats in simplified terms of course. water also seeped through the ground. Where did the water go u ask. I don't know maybe ocean, rivers, lakes, etc. Name any sort of water and thats where its from.

God can do what he wants he downt need a pre made water canopy to flood earth. before the flood there was no rain. only dew. and lakes and rivers made by God

[QUOTE="mig_killer2"][QUOTE="syorks"][QUOTE="mig_killer2"][QUOTE="Fireball2500"][QUOTE="mig_killer2"][QUOTE="Fireball2500"][QUOTE="mig_killer2"][QUOTE="Fireball2500"][QUOTE="mig_killer2"][QUOTE="Fireball2500"][QUOTE="Atrus"]

[QUOTE="syorks"]doesn't make it not true. i provided a possible explanation which is all thats required. syorks

God sustaining plants in the absence of photosynthesis is not an explanation, it's a made up conjecture so that you don't have to give a credible answer.

If there was an alternative that you knew you'd have given that, without one, you fell back to "God did it". You didn't even manage to explain how God did it.

How is your explanation any more believable than if someone said Cthulhu helped sustain the plants?

Ground and sky.

oh, and where did the water go?

Fine, there was a water canopy covering the earth at first and when the flood happened God let it fall. Thats in simplified terms of course. water also seeped through the ground. Where did the water go u ask. I don't know maybe ocean, rivers, lakes, etc. Name any sort of water and thats where its from.

[QUOTE="syorks"][QUOTE="mig_killer2"][QUOTE="syorks"][QUOTE="mig_killer2"][QUOTE="Fireball2500"][QUOTE="mig_killer2"][QUOTE="Fireball2500"][QUOTE="mig_killer2"][QUOTE="Fireball2500"][QUOTE="mig_killer2"][QUOTE="Fireball2500"][QUOTE="Atrus"]

[QUOTE="syorks"]doesn't make it not true. i provided a possible explanation which is all thats required. mig_killer2

God sustaining plants in the absence of photosynthesis is not an explanation, it's a made up conjecture so that you don't have to give a credible answer.

If there was an alternative that you knew you'd have given that, without one, you fell back to "God did it". You didn't even manage to explain how God did it.

How is your explanation any more believable than if someone said Cthulhu helped sustain the plants?

Ground and sky.

oh, and where did the water go?

Fine, there was a water canopy covering the earth at first and when the flood happened God let it fall. Thats in simplified terms of course. water also seeped through the ground. Where did the water go u ask. I don't know maybe ocean, rivers, lakes, etc. Name any sort of water and thats where its from.

it wasn't. God doesn't need a pre made canopy to flood earth. he had power and control over all matter.

[QUOTE="mig_killer2"][QUOTE="syorks"][QUOTE="mig_killer2"][QUOTE="syorks"][QUOTE="mig_killer2"][QUOTE="Fireball2500"][QUOTE="mig_killer2"][QUOTE="Fireball2500"][QUOTE="mig_killer2"][QUOTE="Fireball2500"][QUOTE="mig_killer2"][QUOTE="Fireball2500"][QUOTE="Atrus"]

[QUOTE="syorks"]doesn't make it not true. i provided a possible explanation which is all thats required. Claw17k

God sustaining plants in the absence of photosynthesis is not an explanation, it's a made up conjecture so that you don't have to give a credible answer.

If there was an alternative that you knew you'd have given that, without one, you fell back to "God did it". You didn't even manage to explain how God did it.

How is your explanation any more believable than if someone said Cthulhu helped sustain the plants?

Ground and sky.

oh, and where did the water go?

Fine, there was a water canopy covering the earth at first and when the flood happened God let it fall. Thats in simplified terms of course. water also seeped through the ground. Where did the water go u ask. I don't know maybe ocean, rivers, lakes, etc. Name any sort of water and thats where its from.

it wasn't. God doesn't need a pre made canopy to flood earth. he had power and control over all matter.

are you serious?

Islam supports scientific FACTS, not THEORIES like evolution. in fact there are many scientific facts in the Quran which has been mentioned 1400 years ago but only has been discovered recently! http://www.miraclesofthequran.com/scientific_index.html

who ever denies this should think openly...

Islam supports scientific FACTS, not THEORIES like evolution.

GFahim

[QUOTE="GFahim"]

Islam supports scientific FACTS, not THEORIES like evolution.

quiglythegreat

what the hell are you talkin about man? all im pointing out is that Islam doesn't conflict with science; that science has a place in Islam and that those scientific facts that have been discovered recently have already been mentioned 1400 years ago. so how is this arguing about science?

btw, if YOU don't understand those facts mentioned in the Quran (look at the link i provided), then how can YOU argue about science and religion?

I don't understand why people think you can't have a religion if your a scientist. great scientists like isaac newton, galileo and einstein were religious man...

[QUOTE="quiglythegreat"][QUOTE="GFahim"]

Islam supports scientific FACTS, not THEORIES like evolution.

GFahim

what the hell are you talkin about man? all im pointing out is that Islam doesn't conflict with science; that science has a place in Islam and that those scientific facts that have been discovered recently have already been mentioned 1400 years ago. so how is this arguing about science?

btw, if YOU don't understand those facts mentioned in the Quran (look at the link i provided), then how can YOU argue about science and religion?

I don't understand why people think you can't have a religion if your a scientist. great scientists like isaac newton, galileo and einstein were religious man...