Is Science and Religion Incoherent?

[Deathraider]

Cool photo I found.

Science and religion. Is it incoherent? There are many atheists and theists who says so, and many atheists and theists who say not necessarily. So I'm actually here to state that religion and science is not necessarily incoherent.

I'll use Christianity as an example: How to be a Christian and accept all the claims of science:

There are many scientific flaws with the Genesis.

Firstly, the universe is known to be 13.8 billion years old. We actually can observe evidence supporting this. If the universe was much younger, since light travels at 299,792,458 m/s, the photons would not have even been able to reach our eyes. If the Earth was young and only 10,000 years old, light from even the Andromeda galaxy would have not had enough time to reach us since it's 2.537 million light years. Furthermore, we can observe evidence in the half life of radioactive elements. If we know what isotope we're looking at and how much of the sample has decayed, we can work it backwards to figure out how old this sample was. A half life of an isotope means if we waited this amount of time, we should expect about half the sample to have decayed. We even have evidence that humans are older than this 10,000 year mark. The mitochondria of humans has a rate of mutation and using that and samples we gather of past humans, we could date them back.

Secondly, the order at which things were created needs to be different. Also, these events have to be very spread out and Christians would need to reinterpret the "day" as being metaphorical. There's several flaws in Genesis, firstly the lack of Sun until day four. Light may have been created on day one, but the sun wasn't created until Genesis 1:14-19 meaning not only is this not how planets form [stars form first before planets do], but the plants would die without any sunlight or heat and the oceans would freeze over, making Genesis 1:9-10 impossible.

Thirdly, let me get to major issue. If Christians were going to be scientific, they need to accept evolution by natural selection. So firstly, there isn't one particular individual we could call "The first human" since evolution is gradual. The "first human" parents would be the same species, so that means they're humans. If so... then Adam and Eve aren't the first humans. Where God chooses to separate humans from animals is purely arbitrary since the parents would be the same species. Furthermore, that means there would be death, diseases, etc. way before Adam ate the apple. Now many religious people may toss it off and say,

"These story are just stories, they didn't literally happen. They're suppose to give us a lesson and stuff."

Okay, but then you're saying original sin isn't literally a thing. If the Garden of Eden story didn't literally happen, why would Jesus die for our sins?

Now to put the cherry on the tip, I did calculation for Noah's Ark and I actually posted this to someone a while back:

"Let's do some mathematics. Now we can't get exact numbers, but we can make reasonable estimations. The Ark is said to be 300 cubits in length, 50 cubits in width and 30 cubits in height. Now we could look up the value of a cubit and it varies between 44.4 cm to 52.92 cm, giving us a minimum volume of 39,387.7728 cubic meter and a maximum volume of 66,691.7356896 cubic meter. Now we need to make estimations now. Most people I've talked to, you included, said the average size of an animal is about a sheep. We can estimate the dimensions of a sheep to be 1.3 meter by 1.2 meter by 0.50 meter, giving us a volume of 0.78 cubic meter. Now taking the volume of the Ark and the sheep volume, we get 50,497 animals as a minimum and 85,502 animals as maximum.

Now divide each number by two and we get 25,248 kind as minimum and 42,751 of kind as maximum. And this was on a few assumption: 1. I decided to give the Ark an advantage by assuming it was a box shape. In reality, the Ark would have even less volume than I just mentioned. 2. I assumed that all the animals were a sheep, mostly because that's what the proponents claimed, 3. I assumed all available can and does get taken up by the animal. In reality, there would be even less animals that could fit on. 4. I assumed that all the sheeps were box shape and could cram next to each other. In reality, cramming in sheeps is not going to keep them alive for long."

So in conclusion, science and religion can work together, but doing so require reinterpretation of the text to the point that it's unrecognisable.

As always, thanks for reading:

DR.

[ladsin]

I think the wording is strange. I would've said "inconsistent" as opposed to "incoherent" and "are" instead of "is".

Besides that I think you then went on to not demonstrate your point very well. I would've instead talk about the methodology. As written it seems you're just talking about how certain stories within Christianity contradict the findings of modern science and as such a literal interpretation of the Bible is inconsistent with science, that is certainly true. We have to remember however that most Christians do not take a literal interpretation of the scriptures. Most today think that many of these stories are allegories, you only addressed this with a single sentence.

I think it would've been better instead to have written about how the methodology of science is constant questioning, trial, and scrutiny by other experts. Religion instead (all that I can think of) is always prescriptive. It assumes the answer and then relies on verification after the fact.

Other than that I liked reading it and found the information in your first point and last about Noah's account to be... well informative XD

[Deathraider]

Well I'm pointing out: "Sure, the stories may be allegories, but if that was so, Christianity would be very very different."
If the story of the garden of Eden was an allegory and humans sin causing the separation between god and man, then why would Jesus sacrifice himself? I mean it's a pretty big plot point to make it into an allegory.

[ladsin]

Well according to those christians it's just an allegory for how sin entered the world through our disobedience. The specifics don't matter to them.

[Deathraider]

There was also the fact that the line between humans and their ancestors aren't clear and evolution is more gradual. When did god choose "Okay, you two are going to be humans. The rest of you, no!"

[ladsin]

Mm I agree, but you're talking about one interpretation of a religion and not "religion" as a whole.
Catholics for example by-and-large accept evolution. Although I admittedly don't know how they reconcile the two other than "directed evolution" but where god draws the line is unbeknownst to me.

[Schrodingerscat]

The delusion and stupidity of people in opinions is astounding.

Why did Church take 100s of years to accept that earth revolves around the son?

Why don't we have solid proof of 'vedc science' surpassing the one current one?

Hard to swallow pill:
Science is superior to religion.

*Waits for downvotes*

[Juxtapose]

You get it.

[Schrodingerscat]

Thanks for MHO!

[Belgie]

Science and religion are not incompatible. But many (most?) specific religions are incompatible with science.

The scientific approach is to say we don't know everything, and use evidence and testing to reveal the truth. Far too many religions start with the assumption "We know the TRUTH" and then set about altering their interpretation of reality to fix their belief.

There could be a Judeo-Christian type deity existing outside of space-time. It's possible. Science has no input on it one way or another. But when various faiths make very very specific claims (like the events in the Bible are literally true) we can definitely show that that is bullshit. We do not live in a world where the evidence supports biblical inerrancy.

Once a religion makes a specific testable claim, it can be falsified. And no religion wants to do that or will accept it once it's done.

So the only way religion and science can co-exist, is if religion never makes a testable statement.

And that means it kind of stops being a religion, and becomes more of a philosophical viewpoint..

[AbleLearner]

Isaac Newton was a Deist, and I now classify Dr. Michio Kaku as a Deist, though I don't think he yet classifies himself that way.

"Religion" is the process of man inventing laws in an attempt to please God. this should be held in distinction to the actual belief in God himself.

the Ontological Argument shows that the Greatest Conceivable Being actually exists in reality, and as such this means Science is necessarily unified with the belief in God. Anyone who does not believe in God is being unscientific.

[Deathraider]

The ontological argument is quite flawed actually. For one thing, a being that is fully omnipotent and fully omniscient is logically impossible. If an omnipotent and omniscient knows what it will do, can it change what it will do? On the one hand, if it is omnipotent, it should be able to. Yet, if it is able to change what it’ll do, then it didn’t really know it will do. However, if it knows exactly what it’ll do, then it can’t change what it’ll do. Hence, the idea of omnipotence and omniscience are logically incoherent.

If the ontological argument was correct, then it could be applied to anything. What if I imagined an absolutely perfect unicorn? If I can imagine the perfect unicorn, it must exist. Otherwise, it wouldn’t be absolutely perfect.

[AbleLearner]

Logical fallacies and nonsense cannot be used to weight Omnipotence. For example, an Omnipotent Being is not required to be able to create an impossible to lift stone and then lift it anyway. That is an inconceivable action, and the Ontological Argument defines God as the "A being than which no greater being can be conceived".

So Inconceivable Arguments do not apply to God.

An Omnipotent Being is actually permitted to give up some of his own Free Will. In creating other Free Moral Agents, the Creator surrendered some of his own Free Will. This does not make him any less Omnipotent, because he is still the Greatest Conceivable Being. You can't try to apply an inconceivable definition of Omnipotence or Omniscience to God, that would never work. Even God himself must obey the laws of Logic, which are his own internal characteristics, as for example, the Bible actually defines God AS "Logos" or put simply, "Logic". (the Rational Principle which governs Reality).

[AbleLearner]

Deathraider:

The eternal universe argument was disproven (Guthe et al) showing that no space-time continuum can ever be past-infinite, including the entire Multiverse. This means everything has a past-finite beginning.

the First Cause must itself be uncaused. thus the First Cause must be a self-motivated entity. The only such entity we can theorize is an Ideal Metaphysical Mind, which is to say the Logos itself is self-motivated. There could be no higher Mind than the Logos itself. Since the First Cause must be a Mind, then this means an actual Almighty God exists who is Logically self-consistent. As I said, God is not required to be able to take actions that are logically inconsistent, since God is defined as the Eternal Will of the Logos itself, as both the Christians and the Greeks defined God as the Logos itself. Minds are self-motivated, and an Ideal Mind would be self-motivated, so the Logos is in fact an Ideal, Self-Motivated Mind. There is no cause for the Logos, it always existed. However, the Logos at some point "Decided" to become a Creator, and thus the Logos is Almighty God.

[Deathraider]

Couldn’t somebody state something inanimate like a food exist because this food is one in which “no greater thing could be conceived.” Why specifically does it have to be a being? And furthermore, would this greatest food exist because it’s an id3a and one in which no greater idea could be conceived. What is even really meant by greatness?

Is god all knowing? Because if omniscience is a thing, then it should be possible to be absolutely certain about any statements. But what about this statement: “There exist things I don’t know.” How could an omniscient being be absolutely certain this statement is false? It must think “What if there was something I didn’t know that I didn’t know of?”

[Deathraider]

Well the thing is that there is a lot unknown about the early conditions of the universe. What you have to understand is that the very early state of the universe might have lasted for an infinite amount of time. We simply do not know.

[RationalMale]

"Firstly, the universe is known to be 13.8 billion years old. We actually can observe evidence supporting this. If the universe was much younger, since light travels at 299,792,458 m/s, the photons would not have even been able to reach our eyes. If the Earth was young and only 10,000 years old, light from even the Andromeda galaxy would have not had enough time to reach us since it's 2.537 million light years. "

If you're willing to accept supernatural, then that's hardly much of a problem. God simply created the universe with light already having arrived.

I mean seriously. What next? Are you going to say "well man dies so the Bible is wrong, there's no scientific proof of a soul and so no heaven or hell can exist"?

[Deathraider]

This is mainly address to people who are scientific and accept god.

[sp33d]

They aren't compatible. For whatever reason you accept science (mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology etc) and their results, but you don't accept Jesus or Allah or what have you. Fundamentally, this isn't so different - you are required to believe Something to be able to deduce all these results we have in various fields.

The difference - science is objective as long as you accept some basic rules of logical inference. You can't bend facts to some political or popular influence (it has been tried and they will certainly continue, but you may ignore that).

With religion on the other hand, you are given quite clear directive and it is not allowed to question these truths, thus we can never be certain of their 'objectivity' or unbiasedness.

Regardless, science doesn't deny religion and it certainly won't be able to, anyway. But it does offer a more coherent alternative, a view where one may confirm certain truths independently of others.

[RetroAlpha]

In my reckoning, science, math, religion (including witchcraft) are all just trying to find the answers to the unknown, albeit using very different methodologies. In a perfect world, a "priest" would try to master them all. Alas, this is not a perfect world.

[Klara-Hitler]

We are 400 years into the scientific revolution. The explanations previously provided by religions to people's various questions are not enough at this point. There are many thoroughly researched, fact-based answers to many of those questions now that simply make religious explanations "expired".

It's not about being incompatible in all aspects. It's about one method beating the other one in certain areas.

[Anonymous]

Plain and simple if you believe in Science you cannot believe, just what is.

I am a Christian and i hear so much about science... How was this world made etc

When God Spoke, He Spoke Life into the world, NOT SCIENCE!

The Big Bang? NO
God did it.

[Deathraider]

c1.staticflickr.com/.../...615591_11cc0d9286_b.jpg
We have observations from telescope. We could observe the cosmic microwave background radiation, something that is predicted by the theory before we even made the observation.

Science is the methodology of finding out things about the universe, based off of observations and experiments.

[markscott]

One Christian said he believed in the big bang theory. He said, "God spoke, and bang, it existed."

[Opinion Owner]

@markscott impossible for big bag theory 😂😂

[markscott]

Opinion Owner: Impossible for the big bang theory? Obviously, you god is too small. It's possible with mine. But actually, when I was saying, God spoke and bang, it was tongue in cheek. But understand, my God is not limited to what science understands, or even what science understand to be natural law.

[LegateLanius]

Well, there are those that would tell you that after all the translations it is hard to give the full scope of what the original was actually saying.
Personally, I think they both demonstrate a need that every human has, explanation, a thirst for knowledge.
They can be capable of working together just as they are not, considering we use current science to reinterpret what they mention in the books.
It's sort of looking at Nostradamus after stuff happened and attribute them to it

[Deathraider]

Well I mean the impact original sin has is believed to be the reason Jesus came, why people are baptised, why anything in the Bible happened to begin with. It's a pretty big plot point to remove.

[LegateLanius]

That too.

[genericname85]

some religions and science are incoherent. deistic religions and science are incoherent, cause science constantly proves religion to be wrong and then religion has to pull back and redefine god so that god fits exactly what science doesn't know yet.

other religions often go in line with psychology and in those areas where it doesn't, it has to be considered wrong.

[Mallazine]

Agreed. I’m a doctor who is also a Christian. Both sides are looking for the truth, and there can only be one truth, so of course they are coherent. Science is only scratching the surface. I know many scientists who are Christians.

[ladsin]

Mm. What field do you practice?

[SaphireAphrodite]

Are you religous? And science and religion are by definition. Religion is based off faith, while science is based on hard facts and proving without having to believe.

[Deathraider]

Used to be.

[markscott]

SaphireAphrodite: Actually, not so. Christianity is based on both science, fact, and faith. Science was once based on fact only, but faith in science, beyond what it can really prove, has crept in steadily.

[Deathraider]

@markscott Sorry, but science isn't about faith as how religion is.

Faith is often used in a way that commits an equivocation fallacy, so I'll let you define the word first.

[markscott]

Deathraider: And Sorry, religion isn't all about faith, as facts and science do factor in. And I've been around long enough, to know that scientists are not just about facts and truth, but have their own set of biases and beliefs, that enter into their determinations.

[Deathraider]

@markscott Oh really. Please elaborate your point.

Because science as a method makes hypothesises, test them through experiments and observations, and throws them out if they were wrong. Hypothesises need to be rigorously tested before they're accepted as theories. Like for example, we were able to confirm Einstein was right about relativity when we observed a star we weren't suppose to be able to see because it was behind the sun, but because of gravitational lending, we did see it. We also confirmed later on using atomic clocks that time did indeed slow down the faster you were moving.

Individual scientist may have biases, but science does not. The method of it. If your hypothesis is right, we should be able to test it. If there's zero indications it's true, why should we believe you?

[SaphireAphrodite]

@markscott when science is based on faith, it's called "psuefiscience", aka fake science. Nearly everything about religion is based on faith, not fact. Especially Christianity, which worships an omniscient and benevolent being who's existence has never been proved. So no, religion is not based on fact, but science is.

[markscott]

SaphireAphrdite: I find that a lot of science is based on faith. Based on the faith that all matter just appeared somehow, out of nothing, Or, it just always existed. If that doesn't take faith, nothing does. And science had decided, with no actual proof, that massive amounts of evolution has occurred, bringing our species from basically no life, to our present form. That takes faith as well. Especially when considering, they block other avenues of inquiry, for alternative possibilities. Yes, that takes faith, and arrogance as well. And Christianity is not all based on faith, as you suppose. There are thousands of artifacts and archaeological finds that back up the bible narrative, giving credence to the accuracy of the bible. And much of the physical evidence that is used to back up evolution, can be interpreted as well, to back up creation.

[irrationally97]

@markscott Someonme doesn't understand the Big Bang Theory or Evolution. Neither state that something came from nothing. The Big Bang Theory only describes what the early universe was like, and how it evolved as time went on. It says nothing about "something coming from nothing".

Evolution (by natural selection), again details how life changes and adapts over time, not how it started. Nobody is saying that life came from nothing.

And they don't block alternative ways of thinking, it's just that the way religious people think of things is inherently flawed and unscientific. If you can come up with a desciption of the Universe that explains things better than the Big Bang and evolution can, then by all means write an arrticle about it. Nobody is stopping you.

[markscott]

@irrationally97 : The issue is not the big bank theory. The issue is evolution, verses a possible alternative. That ties right into where did matter come from. Yes, I know that evolutionists like to ignore where matter came from, as that tends to get in the way some. But if the assertion is to be made, that creation was not involved, as that's all I've heard today, and evolution was all responsible, then where matter began is all baked into the issue. Thus, evolution is certainly partially based on faith. Along with this, is he fact that the evolution of the human species, contains a lot of supposition of how facts fit together, and how they are interpreted. And you say scientists don't block other ways of thinking. Then you certainly don't know the history of how evolutionists have indeed blocked other areas of inquiry. It has been almost standard practice, that is a professor starts to talk about the possibility of creation, he no longer works at the university in short (see more)

[markscott]

He no longer works at the university in short order. This has even been true for mathematics professors who have mentioned evolution in class. Imagine, a university that encourages new ideas, sacking a mathematics professor for even mentioning evolution. That is the kind of "freedom" of thought academia has given any alternatives to evolution. The council of Europe even encourage countries to ban the teaching of creation as a scientific discipline. That is not discouraged, but banned. And you think there is freedom of inquiry. That is one of the reasons I believe in creation. I know that any theory, any process, can be made to look air tight, if alternative ideas are banned, or professors fired for discussing them. Imagine science, the supposedly fair and true way to facts and truth, banning alternatives. It has been that kind of thing, over the many decades, that makes me distrustful of science, when it comes to evolution. You can prove almost anything, if massive (see more)

[markscott]

goes into only one idea, and alternative ideas are blocked, unfunded, and banned. So much for the science of evolution being an honest science.

[SaphireAphrodite]

@markscott evolution still occurs. It's literally observable. Scientific theories make observations, and then predictions. If predictions come true, than the theory is true. Literally everything truly scientific is provable or in the process of being tested to see if it's true. You're examples aren't based on faith. They are either theories, or proven. Go read about the specifics, because I don't know them all. But no scientific conclusion is based on faith. It's proven. If people have ideas, and still have to prove then, than it's called a hypothesis, and it's not considered 100 percent accurate by the scientific community.

[SaphireAphrodite]

@markscott also you're conflating things. The study of science itself, scientists alone, and universities/ other entities controlling what is taught, are three vastly different things. Don't call all of that "science" because that's not science, just social and political prejudice.

[markscott]

SaphireAphrodite: Of course evolution is taking place. That is, changes take place all the time. But that is a far cry from proving that human life came from some primordial mess, and eventually became a human being. And I don't buy for a moment, that some of evolution isn't based on faith. There are too many gaps in evolutionary theory proofs, for it to be honestly proven. And if science was all about honest inquiry, as you say, and unbiased, then why do agencies try to ban alternative teachings to evolution? That's a fact, not opinion. And why is it necessary, for universities to terminate employment, if a professors inquiries about creationism in the class room? And that's a fact. When a scientific model becomes so encased in protection, it no longer allowing the free flow if ideas, no longer allowing contradictory teachings, it is no longer a science, but a matter of faith. That is another reason I believe evolution is partly a matter of faith.

[markscott]

It's social and political prejudice, directly from the scientific and academic community. It makes for a very uneven playing field. When there is a very uneven playing field, then again, you can prove anything. if evolution was teaching was banned, and professors were fires for mentioning it in class rooms, you can bet creationism would have a big upsurge in those who accepted it a truth and proof. Yet you want me to believe the banning of creationism teaching just social, and bias, that doesn't affect scientific understanding? Obviously, you think I was born yesterday.

[irrationally97]

@markscott "That ties right into where matter did come from", yes that is indeed a follow up question you could ask but evolution in itself does not deal with that question, nor depend on it in the slightest. The answer to the question is "We don't know yet". Simple.

"Along with this is the fact that the evolution of the human species contains a lot of supposition of how facts fit together and how they are intrepreted"- Care to provide an example of this?

Why exactly is banning creationism a problem? Teaching creationism in a science class is stupid, as creationism has NEVER been proven by evidence or experiment which makes it inherently unscientific. It's like going into a Maths class and instead of teaching calculus, you start dissecting the works of William Shakespeare. Creationism belong in a philosophy class, along with other philosophical matters.

[markscott]

Just one simple example. When Napoleon's remains were examined a number of years ago, the idea was to test the remains for poison, to see if indeed, he had been poisoned. There were six or eight scientists involved. Half were American, half were French. They dug up Napoleons remains. Now, these were top scientists in their fields, honest, unbiased, time proven to be the best. The scientists uses the same methods, the same processes, etc. When the results came back, to see if Napoleon had been poisoned, there were mixed results. Half of the scientists said he was poisoned, the other half said he was not. It so happened, that every French scientist said he was not poisoned. Every American scientist said he was poisoned. Why the difference? These top French scientists, had an agenda, a national need, to have Napoleon seen in a particular national light. They interpreted the test results, though obviously positive for poison, as not being so. The American scientists, (see more)

[irrationally97]

@markscott Has there ever really been an alternative to science, that advances our understanding of the Universe in the same way (or perhaps in a better way?)

Religion inherently contradicts itself. You have the Hindus saying that multiple Gods created the Universe, the Christians who say that God created the Universe in 7 days and sent his son to redeem us all and many other religions have their own versions of creationism. Which one is true? How do you know? Science has flaws yes, but at least it has a way of testing who's predictions are true, in a way that everybody can agree on.

Even if you go straight to the barebones argument that "The Universe had a Creator", without religious interpretations, it leads to many many more questions. "Why were we created", "How were we created", "Who or what is this Creator and how can we observe it?". It doesn't provide a better model of the Universe than science does and so we chuck it out the window.

[markscott]

The American scientists, who had no national agenda, no need for Napoleon to be seen in a particular light, interpreted the results, as Napoleon having clearly been poisoned. That is a clear example of how personal bias changes scientific findings. A a clear example, of how bias can make even seasoned, internationally respected scientists, interpret data in a way favorable to how they wanted it to be seen. I believe this happens with evolutionary scientists. They are so enamored with evolutionary science, and often so arrogant, they can only see one possible outcome. Any evidence found, is interpreted in a manner that supports evolution. And it's in the interpretation of facts that is actually where evolutionists and creationists differ, just as that is where the French scientists differed from the Americans. Differing from the accepted evolutionary interpretations, leads to dismissal from employment, and banning, stifling alternative ideas. You find for evolution, or lose your job.

[markscott]

@irrationally97 : Irrationally97: You speak of religions contradicting each other, as if that had any bearing on what I believe. I am only "responsible" for what my religion is, not any others. Science is part of academia, but I don't make science responsible for the academics of history, art, music and languages. So don't make me responsible for what I have nothing to do with. You may have chucked religion out the window, but the bible, which I am only "responsible for", gives a coherent and logical explanation for creation. And religion answers questions that science can not answer.

[irrationally97]

@markscott Yeah I'll admit that we humans aren't perfect and are sometimes biased. Science depends on repeatable experiments though, so the data can be checked by other groups of scientists for bias and to see if it holds true. If a whole bunch of people from different backgrounds and with different perspectives can agree on something, then it is very likely unbiased information. Even Christian scientists think evolution is true. They simply don't have the evidence to prove it wrong.

Besides, how is creationism any better? It's literally riddled with bias, it's only supported by religious people who most likely have grown up thinking their religion is true. The people who try to push creationism have a religious agenda, they want their religion to be seen as true and will shut out any opposing ideas, including evolution. And again, there is no way to prove them wrong using their own ideas about life because their ideas about life literally depend on creationism being true.

[irrationally97]

@markscott Well then, please do explain how exactly you know the Bible is true and why you don't believe in any other religions.

And also show us what the coherent and logical explanation for creation is then.

[Anonymous]

Almost nothing in science is confirmed. The whole practice of science is based on theory. Science and religion are based upon the same frame of mind but one is just seen as more rational than the other.

[Deathraider]

Yeah, science does have theories. But the word layman's usage of theory is not the same as how it's used in science. For example, cells are a theory. It's called cell theory.

Theories in science means we've taken a hypothesis And we made observations and experiments, it's been rigorously tested, and it was able to make reliable and accurate predictions.

[Opinion Owner]

True, like I said before, science and religion are based upon the same frame of mind, trying to form some understanding of the world around us. Science just has more proof and was done in a more rational way. I'm not a very religious person myself, but this is just my take on the situation.

[markscott]

Let's just take one of your suppositions. If the earth is new, then light from Andromeda would not have reached us yet. What? Why on earth would you assume light could only have traveled into this section of space, after the earth was created? And beyond that, if God created earth, then he could have used the same power to have the light created, as if it had been here all along. And that's just one of the areas. There are flaws in the rest of your reasoning, as well.

[Deathraider]

If the universe was literally what is said in Genesis, light would not have time to reach us. The 10,000 year model also fails to account for the observations made in Dendrochronology [studying tree rings], which not only tells us the age of the tree, but the past climate.

Here's the thing, if God created everything 10,000 years ago, why would he fake it all? I mean use Occam's razor. God could've just fabricated all of this just to fool us like make so that radioactive sample appears to be much much older, that light could be observed greater than 10,000 light years, and fake many more evidence. Or all these evidence could suggest the cosmos is older than the Bible puts it to be.

[markscott]

Dethrader: You are assuming several things. One, that God created things only within the bounds of understood science. As if the creator, was bound by natural law. Also, there is the misunderstanding of time. When God created earth, the trees were full grown, etc. If a scientist came along the day after creation, he would see these massive trees, and know, with scientific proof, they were many hundreds, or even thousands of years old. But they would have been created the day before. Creation itself distorts factors of time. Then throw in the Noachian flood. The bible speaks of massive upheavals, that had never before or since taken place. The massive upheaval of nature went beyond just a flood. All of these throw off scientific findings. Just as the trees would have appeared a great deal older than they were, so could he cosmos appeared a great deal than it was. Or, the cosmos could have been created, ages before the earth was.

[Deathraider]

Again, you could assume all of that, but you're not being scientific by doing that. What observation or experiment shows what you claim is correct?

I mean try arguing against Last Thursdayism. That the universe was created Last Thursday. You can't conjure up evidence to disprove it no matter how much evidence you could have. In science, any hypothesis that we make needs to have falsifiability, meaning that it's possible to prove it wrong. If you can't ever prove it wrong, how do you know it's right?

[markscott]

I wasn't trying to use any evidence. Only common sense and logic, if creation did occur. If creation did occur, then your suppositions would be all off. You would have no scientific means of measuring it, if God created the solar system in the same fashion as it would logically be expected, that he would create threes at creation. In other words, you have no idea if creation occurred of not, because your scientific tools can only measure what naturally occurs, within the confines of understood scientific knowledge. As if all that takes place, has to fit within scientific norms, and God is bound by human scientific knowledge of norms. Of course, I have not proof of creation, but there are evidences of it. Just as you see evidences of there not being creation.

[Deathraider]

Evidence? What evidence? And I said you could disregard all of the evidence against it by saying god fabricated all of it, but you essentially create an unfalsifiable hypothesis.

[markscott]

Deathraider: You can only accept scientific evidence, though very valuable, it is not capable of measuring or knowing many things. I believe in some things that science can not measure, and I also believe science sometimes misinterprets evidence, due to a mind set which conforms to its preconceived ideas. Neither of us can come to a meeting of the minds, as our means of determination are so different. You are locked into certain interpretations of the physical. I'm locked into some just as sure interpretations of the physical, and some faith as well. There is no sense in us discussing pounds to inches, and expecting a reasonable result, to determine the temperature.

[Deathraider]

Well the explantions of science are able to make reliable, accurate, and precise predictions that are verifiable. If a day comes with evidence to show it wrong, I'm not going to hesitate, but currently, there isn't evidence suggesting that evolution is wrong or the universe is young.

[markscott]

DeathRaider: The truth is, science does not have the answers, and neither do creationists. As said, we are using inches and pounds to determine the temperature, and it will not work. There is no sense in discussing this farther. Our points of reference are too far apart.

[Deathraider]

What answers? It can answer how humans came to be, how did the solar system formed, how things act at the subatomic scale, etc.

[markscott]

Deathraider: Einstein famously said: "I am convinced that he [God] does not play dice with the universe." To which Born replied. "Who are you to tell God what to do?" That is where this discussion is at. The arrogance of science, as if it has all the answers, and all other knowledge is of lesser quality, and must give way. Even God must give way.

[Deathraider]

The thing is that the conversation was not about the belief of god. If you actually look up about Niels Bohr, you would find that he was an atheist.

The quote was about quantum mechanics and Einstein didn't think it's counterintuitive was true despite the evidence.

Science doesn't have all the answers. But it's the best method we have at determining what is and isn't true. It's able to make reliable and accurate predictions. But here's the thing, it is better to have unanswerable questions than unquestionable answers.

You can not be absolutely sure that you know everything with 100% certainty. Not even a hypothetical god that is suppositely omniscient. Because there could be something you don't know that you don't know even existed.

[markscott]

Deathraider: I can be just as sure of God, as you can be of evolution. As Emily Dickinson said; "I never saw a moor, I never saw the sea; yet know I how the heather looks, and what a wave must be. I never spoke with God, nor visited in heaven, yet certain am I of the spot, as if the chart were given." That's how sure I am, and if you are honest, you are no more sure of evolution, than I am of this. I've never seen a moor, and you have never seen an animal in a phylum turn into a class. I doubt you have even seen actual, absolute proof, even in your mind, of it having taken place, without some creative interpretation. And you probably think belief in God is all about faith, which it is definitely not.

[Deathraider]

Absolute proof? What do you mean? Are you absolutely sure the universe existed last Thursday? Try as you might, you cannot prove with 100% certainty the universe existed last Thursday. So does that mean that claim is valid? No. What about someone who claimed the universe did not exist until your birth? How could you ever be 100% certain that the claim is wrong? You can't.

I have evidence that evolution by natural selection exist. We have fossils, DNA, mitochondrias, vestigial organs to name a few.

I am very very sure that evolution happened because of the evidence. Imagine in a court case someone was to dismiss the DNA, fingerprint, bloodstain, ballistics, etc. because they didn't have "absolute proof". That's ridiculous. Yet when it comes to something like evolution, pepole make a double standard. The thing is that no matter how hard you try to be certain you know something, you can't be 100% sure. But you don't need to be 100% sure of something for it to be true.

[Deathraider]

What evidence do you have that a God exist? We have plenty of evidence that evolution happened.

[PsychoKiller]

You are forgetting one crucial thing. Science is based on evidence. And there isn't a single piece of evidence in the world, and there never has been, that at least implies existence of some god-like creature...

[Deathraider]

I'm not arguing for a god. I don't think a God exist because of a lack of evidence.

[PsychoKiller]

A god is the essence of religion, the epicenter. Wothout the fictional concept of god, religion wouldn't exist

[Deathraider]

I'm not religious. I thought I made that clear in my Mytake.

Also not all religion are theistic, though a lot are. An example is Buddhism.

[PsychoKiller]

I didn't say you were, but you claimed that religion and science can work together, while forgetting the fact that religion is just a bunch of fairytales with no evidence whatsoever, and evidence is the essence of science

[Deathraider]

Well I don't believe in religious claims for that reason, but a lot of people claim that god exist outside of logic and reason and cannot be studied. They also claim that religion and scientific claims aren't incoherent. My point here is that they aren't wrong, but at the same time, they would need to reinterpret their text to the point it's no longer anything like the original.

[PsychoKiller]

The absence of evidence against some claim, doesn't make that claim necessarily true. The fact we can't disprove god, doesn't mean he is real. God is on the level of Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy, a pure product of human imagination with absolutely nothing to back those claims up. I think you are taking religious people too seriously. You wouldn't conduct a study about Santa Claus now, would you?

[Deathraider]

Of course not. I don't think the idea of god exist. This Mytake is more about the claim of religious people and the statement that science and the bible doesn't contradict. I'm basically saying "Sure, but you realise these things would have to be the case."

[DaChillCookie]

I don't really give a flying fuck either way. It's your choice to believe in what you want, just don't try and shove your own religion down my throat

[alice55]

To what I heard a lot of scientist stuff are only about hypothesis so it would mean a lot are false or partly false.

[Deathraider]

Well here's the ironic thing about knowing, you can't be absolutely 100% sure that what you know right now is correct. So how do we really find out about the nature of the universe. Well science is about making hypothesis, testing hypothesis by experiments or observation. Then rigorously verify it over.

The thing is that we consider something to be true if it could make reliable, precise, and accurate predictions about the universe. Newton, a very famous scientist. He had an equation of gravity that helped us explain the motion of planets and the cosmos. In 1687, he published it. Fast forward to 1821. The observations of Uranus was odd. We discovered it, but something wasn't quite right about the orbit of the planet. There were deviations. But Newton's equation could predict that there was another planet, Neptune out there. We predicted it's mass and where it was in the sky. Sure enough, observations confirmed it.

[alice55]

Yes but how many of those hypothesis is revealed to be true? I don't think the number is very high.

[Deathraider]

Then scientist noticed something weird about Mercury's orbit. They hypothesised a planet named Planet Vulcan was close to the sun. But Einstein came around and his equations were able to explain these deviations. It wasn't necessarily Newton was completely wrong, Einstein's equation just added on to Newton's. You see, the fact that we can't be absolutely sure that we know stuff, science accounts for that.

It would be better to have unanswered questions and unquestioned answers.

[alice55]

I think it's better to have answer to all question.
Too you gave me example but no percentage on how many are exact and 100 % exact.
Personally I have no interest in Science since it's all based on hypothesis and not fact. I don't like it.

[Deathraider]

Hypothesis are just that. Science has theories. Theories are explanations well proven through observations and experiments. Cell theory, plate tectonic theory, theory of general relativity, theory of special relativity, quantum field theory, etc.

Facts are just things like: The speed of light is constant. Or velocities are relative. We take facts and we make hypothesis: If we placed a clock on a plane and on the ground, then their clocks should tick at different rates because if we replaced those clocks with two mirrors and light bouncing in between with a 1 second, if the train is moving, the distance would slightly be different:
c1.staticflickr.com/.../...615591_11cc0d9286_b.jpg
We test it using atomic clock. And the results confirms it. We send these result for other scientist to check.

The thing is, if you have unquestionable answers, how do you know if they're ever actually true?

[Deathraider]

How many hypothesis aren't true: A lot.

But only the hypothesis that have been rigorously tested becomes a theory. And theories can make reliable predictions.

[alice55]

I'm sorry but I don't understand anything now, all of this is too complicate for me, I stopped all science in middle school XD

"plate tectonic theory, theory of general relativity, theory of special relativity, quantum field theory," "velocities"
I have no idea what all those things are...

[Deathraider]

Plate tectonics: The Earth has the crust. The mantle, the layer underneath the crust is slowly moving the crust. This is why continents move over time.
Theory of general relativity: Extention of Newton's equation for gravity, explains gravity better in extreme circumstances like near a black hole.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=MTY1Kje0yLg
Special relativity: Explains what happens when you go closer to the speed of light. Since the speed of light is constant for all observers, you observe distances contracting and time slows down.
Quantum field theory: Explains how particles interact with each other. Probably the most confusing of all of these.
Velocity: Speed and direction. It's a vector measurement. If I said "300 m/s to the right", that's a velocity. If I said just "300 m/s", that's just speed.

[alice55]

This is so complicate and confusing ><
How can you know so much about it when you're only 16 *-*
In my country I think all those stuff are learnt in university or so. In high school I saw them talking about the moon and bulbs.

[Deathraider]

I teach myself. Though I would admit, I wish I knew more.

[Zodiac10]

I have been meaning to post on this mytake for the longest time but just remembered. I have one question. Do you not believe in any aspect of religion at all?

[Deathraider]

I wouldn't consider myself religious. Neither would I consider myself as a person that believe in any sort of spirit.

[John13131]

I think you might mean incompatible or incommensurable rather than incoherent

[Deathraider]

Coherence is the state being logical and consistence. Incoherence is the lack of being logical and consistent.

[John13131]

Yes and it would be possible for science to be incoherent and religion to be incoherent for different reasons that have nothing to do with whether or not they cohere with eachother. If science is incoherent and religion is incoherent then Yes 'science and religion' is incoherent. So one could justify the answer Yes without needing to consider the relationship between science and religion.

[Lovi87]

I couldn't care less. Believe or don't believe in whatever the hell you want.

[Juxtapose]

Religion is just frankly insane delusions that are normalized because we're still a primitive species. It can't even begin to compare to science anymore than some mad man's incoherent ramblings.