The debate "Scientists use the same arguments they claim christians use." was started by
December 1, 2015, 5:57 pm.
15 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 54 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most people are against to this statement.
Alex posted 55 arguments, PsychDave posted 1 argument, thenbamatrix posted 1 argument, historybuff posted 4 arguments to the agreers part.
pajrc1234 posted 1 argument, omactivate posted 1 argument, PsychDave posted 25 arguments, historybuff posted 17 arguments, Sosocratese posted 21 arguments, sloanstar1000 posted 1 argument to the disagreers part.
Alex, AlexRose1517, truth_or_ture, M, historybuff, Fettywap100, thenbamatrix, redeemed and 7 visitors agree.
pajrc1234, Sosocratese, PsychDave, Wookie, WaspToxin, scotthansonMC, Sli, curlyyxx, omgflyingbannas, Gandalf, omactivate, sloanstar1000, Freyja, project_mayhem, DiamondPerfect, samreen, Saaz7298, ProudAmerican888, Burnin, llemponen, futuremaster, debateisgreat, franciscotrejo, Socrates, RyanWakefield, Zuhayr and 28 visitors disagree.
As historybuff and psychdave have said, we know the theories in science to be accurate to a very high degree of certainty.
I'll go back to gravity to explain. We know for certain the properties of gravity. We can calculate it in celestial bodies millions of light years away. However, we don't know if gravitons exist (the particle thought to be responsible for gravity). So, would you say that gravity doesn't exist just because we haven't proven the existence of a hypothetical particle? Is the theory of gravity in jeopardy if we find some other particle or field to be responsible for gravity? It's the same with evolution and the big bang. We're working on particulars.
How about you do some research by READING THE RESOURCE I GAVE YOU A LINK TO and stop asking questions until you have a basic understanding.
no one told you a theory cannot be proven 100%. you are misunderstanding. we can 100% prove gravity is real. but we don't always understand everything about it. but not understanding one aspect of gravity shouldn't make you question that gravity exists. the big bang is the same. there is evidence that proves it happened. we don't know everything about it, but we can 100% prove it happened.
I've heard it both ways so...
who should I believe?
Yes, a scientific theory can be 100% proven. Please read the link provided for an explanation of how.
PsychDave can a theory be 100% correct?
Sosocratees says no, because of the fact we are unsure.
This is the first paragraph of the link I provided.
"In general, a scientific law is the description of an observed phenomenon. It doesn't explain why the phenomenon exists or what causes it. The explanation of the phenomenon is called a scientific theory. It is a misconception that theories turn into laws with enough research. "
Did you spend any time researching yourself before asking us to spoon feed you information? I provided a resource that explains that difference. If it is to challenging for you I can try to find one that uses smaller words.
"To your, 100% thing. It means that the pieces we have demonstrated to be true are 100% true. It just means that we are unsure of some of the particulars of a theory."
Let's say you have demonstrated 90% to be true, then you have a solid 90%. you still need that 10% that you are "unsure" about to be 100% sure. so on things like the big bang you are not 100% sure.
how come gravity is only a theory when we can prove it? what are we unsure of when it comes to gravity? just wondering.
If the problem has been that you honestly don't know the scientific definition of a theory vs a law, I will attach a link explaining it.
To your, 100% thing. It means that the pieces we have demonstrated to be true are 100% true. It just means that we are unsure of some of the particulars of a theory. The best theory to illustrate this with is evolution. Mutation has long been established as a process of evolution. We know mutation occurs, so now we're working on figuring out processes of mutation, like gene shift (which gave us the nylon eating bacteria in Japan). Does that make sense now?
I can explain further if you need.
So, the big bang is a theory like gravity is a theory, like germ theory is a theory, like relativity is a theory. A scientific theory is a well substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world. What that means is that we have proven the concept and are now filling in the particulars. With relativity for instance, we know that it works, we know that the overall theory is true. Our GPS systems rely on relativity to function, but we're still working on some of the particulars of the theory.
The same goes for the big bang. We know it happened. We've seen the radiation, we've seen the gravitational waves from mere seconds post big bang, now we need to fill in the particulars. Gravity is the same. We understand how gravity works for the most part, and we can be confident that our models are correct on the large scale, so we're now working to unify the theory of gravity into the quantum realm.
I guess you should accuse my intellect because I thought a theory is not proven fact 100%, it can be proven, but at the moment it is not. if something is 100% proven with no doubt then It can't be a theory. what am I missing.
This is why I accuse you of intellectual dishonesty. We have had conversations about the definition of a scientific theory before, and yet here you are again trying to diminish a theory by calling upon the colloquial definition of the term rather than arguing the content of the theory. You are either purposefully making a strawman argument, or you're incapable of understanding simple definitions....so either I have to question your integrity or your intellect, which is it that I should I be addressing?
that statement makes no sense. you just "proof of God". there is no proof of god. not even a little bit.
it's a big like saying that's why I read Archie comics, to gain more knowledge and proof that Jughead likes burgers.
that is why I study religion. to get better knowledge and more proof of God.
All it takes to prove science is education. If you want to understand quantum mechanics, big bang theory, or any other scientific model, the resources exist to learn. Whether you do or not is up to you. Your claim that unsubstantiated claims are on equal footing with scientific evidence is absurd. Only a select few people can play world class violin, but we don't have to take it on faith that it can be played. There is proof. That is the difference.
no. someone hearing voices is by its very nature unprovable. math is not. it might take exceptional intelligence to understand the math, but anyone can check it. no one can check someone's conversation with invisible people.
the scientific evidence such as quantum mechanics can be understood by a few, if any.
full proof of God Is directly proven to a few who have had signs, or visions. like certain saints, and the apostles. so again science and religion are use the same argument- only a few people can understand the direct proof.
those are not the same thing at all. science says this may be illogical but here's lots of evidence proving it to be true. religion says this is illogical but believe it because we say so.
religion and science both argue "what we think may be illogical, but it is truth" that is the argument, and it is the same.
if the big bang is only a theory how can it be proved? I can have supporting evidence, but it can't be proved. I believe in the big bang. God make a little particle, made it blow up creating a bunch of stuff.
Proving the Big Bang is a huge en-devour and would require me to go through tens of thousands (if not hundreds of thousands of studies) to explain. So you're request is somewhat of a unrealistic request. If you can think of specific questions, I can definitely answer them. But to expect me to explain a complex theory resting on even more complex principles in detail in this format is a preposterous request. Here is a list of evidence which supports the big bang theory. If you really want to learn about the big bang and understand it, I suggest you do your own research into these.
1. Redshift of Galaxies
2. Microwave Background
3. Mixture of Elements
4. our ability to see back in time (about 350,000 years post big bang)
5. Tremors of the Big Bang: First direct evidence of cosmic inflation (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/03/140317125850.htm)
Whether or not science seems logical to you is also irrelevant. Science sometimes draws conclusions which are illogical and are yet true (electrons being in more than one place at the same time for instance; quantum mechanics is a mind f**k if I've ever seen one, the theory of relativity is not all that logical and yet true). Science is based on evidence, not logic per-se.
My argument is very simple. Science uses empirical evidence, peer review, and falsifiable claims to advance their arguments and Religion does not. Religion uses doctrine, authority, and non-falsifiable claims to further their arguments. My claim is that these are different types of arguments as the strength of the proof for their claims is so distinctly different.
In order for me to accept your position, you would have to demonstrate that the arguments of religion and science rest on the same strength of evidence.
Meaning you have to demonstrate how the church either uses empirical evidence, peer review, and falsifiable theories to further their claim, or that scientific evidence is as subjective as religious evidence.
So when the church believed and taught that the creation story must be taken literally for hundreds of years, that has not changed?
the church teachings as I said before can't change. what can change is the science beliefs of people in the church.
I follow religion and science. they are both logical to me, but some parts of science seems illogical to me. because all science claims are testable prove. the big bang theory.
Ok, so you've shown us how a argument from science can change the teachings of the church. You've shown us how science comes to it's conclusions. Now, we know that both science and the church make truth claims. Meaning they both make claims about the truth or falsehood of a certain type of knowledge. Science uses empirical data to come to conclusions about the origin of the universe, the origin of species, and the natural world around us. Religion uses scripture.
What I'm arguing is that Science rests on repeatable results, falsifiable claims, and a process of peer review to validate results and the conclusions that can be drawn from such results in order to form it's arguments. This means science makes arguments which are verified by multiple sources, checked for bias and falsification, contain only claims which are supported by evidence, and draws conclusions which are appropriate for the level of evidence provided.
Religion rests on un-falsifiable claims, authoritative dictation, and scriptures in order to form it's arguments. The authoritative dictation means that there is no peer review process for claims made by the church. This is to say that only one interpretation of a text which may be interpreted literally, philosophically, or poetically becomes doctrine. It means that the authority figure is able to dictate teachings based on personal bias without being checked for such bias. Religion also uses un-falsifiable claims (who created the universe, why are we here, etc...) meaning they make claims which are not testable. Religion presupposes the truth of religion and scripture rather than independently verifying the truth of religion unless challenged by outsiders (science).
Are you going to address the fact that you lied when you said the church had never confirmed that the creation story was meant to be taken literally.
ok. I will.
the church believes in theory A, but is not infallible on it so they can change their view.
science believes in theory A, but because it's only a theory they can change their view on it.
a scientists does tests and proves theory B, disproving theory A.
the church says "science proved we were wrong about this, so believe the new proven scientific theory if you want"
science says "science proved we were wrong about this, so we must change our view now to go with the new proven idea."
by "church" I mean the people of the church. the Chair of Peter and doctrines of the official church can't change and never have. and no science disproves them.
You're describing outcome, an argument is the process of how you arrive at that outcome. So just because both change their minds in no way constitutes that they use the same arguments to arrive at change. You need to show how the church's rational and the scientific community's rational is the same.
Historybuff my point exactly both the church and science will admit they are wrong on scientific things the church h isn't infallible on. they both use the same argument about a new discovery disproving old beliefs, yet the church gets in trouble.
Did you actually read the article?
"Both the Council of Trent and Vatican Council I taught that no one is permitted to interpret Sacred Scripture ?contrary to the unanimous agreement of the Fathers.?"
"The Fathers and Doctors of the Church unanimously agreed that Genesis 1-11 is an inerrant literal historical account of the beginning of the world and the human species as related by the prophet Moses under divine inspiration. "
I'm not sure where you get ambiguity there.
science admits it is wrong all the time. almost every day a discovery is made which counters a previous idea. it is a constantly updating system. that is the whole point.
your telling me that science will admit it's wrong just like that and people will be good with that?
there are things that religion should not be a part of, and there are things that religion is a part of that it should be
I'm shocked you will admit there is anything that religion has no part in.
but that seems really cowardly to me. (the church not you personally). they preach something that was wrong for a long time. as it becomes increasingly obvious they are wrong they don't admit it. even though anyone who reads anything knows it. they hide and don't publicly accept the truth because religious zealots don't want to hear it.
religion never confirmed to it. if the church had, then a catholic must believe the earth is millions years old. religion leaves it out for individual decision. for things like evolution and the earth's age, I use my own reason, and science. I will rarely use religion for deciding how old the earth is. religion plays no part in that.
So what you're saying is science was able to provide enough empirical evidence to show that the earth was over 6k years old and religion had to conform to it. Meaning the science used an argument which was stronger than the church's evidence/argument....
Please demonstrate how the church then uses the same arguments as science? You have failed to actually demonstrate the position which you are taking.
the article says nowhere that one must have believed earth was 6000 years old. the early church fathers all agreed that the earth was 6000k years old because everybody believed earth was 6000 years old. once science proved that earth is millions of years, religious people have come to believe in that, because we're not stupid, stubborn, literal interpreters of the bible. what every human believed at one time is not tradition. unless they made it a doctrine that the earth is 6000 years old, and or made it a matter of faith. today, as it always has been, the faith is God made man in his own image, and God made everything. how he did it, how long he took, and of he used evolution are all up to the individual to decide.
So how do you justify this faith in the church's tradition when those traditions change? I will attach a link that goes through the church's teachings about the literal interpretation of the creation story, the age of the earth, and evolution. It is not written to attack the church but rather out of faith in the church's traditions.
So, if I'm understanding you correctly, you are saying that you will disregard empirical evidence if it conflicts with biblical teachings when the church says so, and you will ignore biblical verses, which you cherry pick, if the church has nothing to say on them. That doesn't seem to be a consistent way of establishing an informed opinion.... How is it that only some of the Bible is up for question but other aspects aren't? Are you conceding that some of the Bible is absolutely false?
If that is the case, you can't possibly believe that the arguments made by religion and science are in any way, shape, or form the same. In science there is no authority, so you would never have an argument based on authority (like the church). Science is strictly supported by empirical data for its claims, religious arguments actively ignore empirical evidence in favor of divine inspiration. So how is it again that science and religion form the same arguments?
no I'm first doing what Jesus said. He said look to the church. so I believe all the doctrine. the stuff left up to my judgment I'll go with my logic on, and sometimes I'll agree with science, sometimes not.
So you're cherry picking verses to conform to your believes rather than adjusting your beliefs to the source you claim to be proof of God and divinely inspired....
I don't take the 6 days of creation literal, only a very small percentage do. I'll go with science and say the human race is 200,000ish years old. the catholic church leaves the age of earth and humans up to the individual to decide. one could take the bible literally, but I don't in many cases.
I would argue that science is correct and that modern humans have been around for about 200,000 years. It may even be a little longer than that.
Well, the age of the earth, according to biblical teachings, is a few days older than the human race....
how old do you think the human race is? the article you pointed out cam only say the age of the human race, not the age of the earth.
You can do the math in the Bible and you come to an earth that is about 6,000 years old. Simply add the ages of the lineages described in the Bible.... I know you've heard all this before, so I don't know why you pretend like this line of questioning is somehow unfounded.
Here is the actual math.
The nephilim were more than just large men....
Job chapter 40-41 also mentions dragons
Unicorns are mentioned 9 times in the Bible....
I don't know what bible you've read, but your totally wrong. the bible never says how old the earth is. are you telling me you've never clued a tall person a "gaint" before? the dragon is from revalation, and did not happen so not sure how that can be disproven.
Alex, the believes of the the Catholic Church is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is calling into question what you constitute as reasonable evidence. If there are enough problems with the evidence you provide (i.e. The issues with the Bible as a historical document or even it being divinely inspired) then you must bring down scientific evidence to the level that the evidence you present.
I'm assuming you are absolutely incapable of attacking scientific evidence and are thus trying to elevate scripture to the level of scientific evidence. Now, you haven't actually addressed the issues presented to you. Why are there inconsistencies in the story of christ (if it's because it was written for various audiences, then how do you claim that it must be divinely inspired)? Why are the historical portions of the Bible so inaccurate? Why should we believe a book to be truth when it clearly mentions unicorns, Giants, and dragons? Why should we believe in a book which claims the earth is about 6,000 years old when we know better? Why should we accept a book with such blatant flaws to be evidence for anything? If I gave you a scientific paper with this many problems and falsehoods and claimed it to be evidence for anything you would rightfully laugh at me...
catholics edited the scriptures a thousand years before protestants existed. your traditions are all based on what the original church leaders forced everyone to believe. why are 1000 years of lies somehow proof? the longer you tell a lie doesn't make it somehow correct.
prodestants are the ones who edit scripture to meat their beliefs, not us catholics.
umm. I hate it when people think catholics believe in scipture only. we believe in Tradition as well. Jesus commanded his followers to teach, not to write. there were so many people who could not read, that oral teaching was really the only way. books were also very rare. the Truth is what Jesus says. Jesus says to follow the church so we follow the church.
on a side note- do you have something against old men historybuff, because it seems your insulting the church because old people are at the head.
No, they are saying that cherry picking scripture to match your agenda doesn't mean that the fact that they agree is divine. You don't need to accept scripture that is counter to your beliefs, but you also can't claim that they all agree since the only reason they agree is because only those that did were included.
If I said all comedians are American and proved it by listing only American comedians, it doesn't prove me right. It proves that I chose a sample that agrees with my belief. That is what the early editors of the Bible did. They chose the books that agreed with them, then said they were the true ones. Claiming they all agree is ignoring all the ones that didn't, which is inaccurate.
the church didn't believe anything to be truth at the time. they hadn't even written it yet. that's the point. they made up what they wanted the "truth" to be. it isn't the word of God. it's the word of a bunch of old men.
so what should the church have done with those who disagreed? I'm sorry, but it seems like your saying the church should embrace opposite sides, and agree to everything, instead of sticking to what the church believes the truth is.
because it is the church who decided which books were right. and then you say the fact that after they were done excommunicating the ones that didn't agree, that everyone agreed is some kind of evidence. the truth is that the Bible was written by men long after Jesus' death (if he even existed) and then edited and pasted together by the church. there is more proof of Jesus' divinity than any other mythical god.
and if Luke read the other Gospels and copied them, then why do we have these "contridictions" I hear about so much? you can't have it both ways.
Luke's Gospel focuses on Mary. Notice how his nativity story is longer and more detailed.
nonsense Sosocratees. it is very unlikely that they read each others Gospels. must I remind you that the audience of the gospels are different. different audiences require different styles of writing. John's Gospel is the most different and does focus on the divinity of Christ more then the others, but the other 3 Gospels still say Jesus is God.
if I write something that says Jesus is God, but not fully. that is wrong and the church will declare it wrong. what is wrong with not accepting false books?
I'm saying the GOSPELS were written way after Jesus (the earliest being 40 years after Jesus). They are also not complementary, as you claim. Matthew wrote his gospel first. It didn't include the story of the Virgin birth. That part was added later by an unknown author. Luke used Matthew's gospel to frame his own. Luke, however, used the edited copy of Matthew and included the Virgin birth. Mark, however neglects the Virgin birth as well. Matthew, Mark and Luke, also don't mention Jesus proclaiming his own godliness, whereas John talks about this quite a bit. So Jesus's divinity comes from only one gospel, the latest, which is John.
Now, you claim that having a work, which was edited by unknown authors and then put together into a book based on political ideology is somehow proof that the Bible is true? That makes no sense. Furthermore, the authors of the gospels knew of each other's work as I demonstrated above.
The story of Jesus is also by no means unique. I'm sure you're aware, but stories which are remarkably like the story of Jesus have been around for generations before Jesus. Look at Horus (3100 BC), Buddha (563 BC), mithra (2000 BC), Krishna (3000 BC), Osiris (2500 BC). Why is it that we should believe the story of Jesus when all of these characters have a very similar mythology which fulfill many of the same prophecies as Jesus did? Is it not fair to question the authenticity of the story of Jesus and perhaps accuse the writers of the Bible of simply retelling old myths? Is there any evidence that could dismiss such a question?
Again, you have not provided any rebuttal to scientific evidence for scientific claims. You have thus still not demonstrated that scientific knowledge is the same as theological ideas. May I remind you, you must produce a line of reasoning which ends in scientific evidence constituting the same level of evidence as religious evidence, that there is a conspiracy to force certain scientific knowledge in spite of evidence to the contrary, or that there is evidence which reaches the level of scientific evidence for religious arguments. You still have done none of these.
they did not agree. they said many different things. until the church discarded all the books that disagreed with the message they wanted and called anyone who wouldn't go along with it a heretic. that isn't a sign of the divinity of the Bible. only the fact that it was written and edited by the church.
that could be true if the Gospels only incuded things forshadowed in the Old Testemenent. the problem is the Gospels have not only that, but things not in the old testemenent. these other things are agreed on in the gospels. the chance that the bible was fixed is crazy. the writers did not know each other, the books were written at different times for different groups of people, yet they all said the same thing. this proves not only I'd the bible true, but it is inspired by God to be true. .
no. the stories about Jesus were written after his death. the Bible was written after almost anyone who could have been present for those events had died. it would not be hard to write the story of Jesus to match the old testament. and who would dispute it? and even if they did, who would believe them? those who disagreed were branded heretics. the fact that the narrative they came up with matched the old testament means nothing since the people writing the story were well aware of the old testament.
Sosocratees your saying the Old testemenent was written After jesus died?
Are you capable of rational thought? If so, you can look at the data those experiments gave and see if they are accurate. If you doubt them you can reproduce them since detailed information is available. Nothing is being taken on faith.
Also, where did you get that statistic? I can't seem to find anywhere that says 99% of scientists are atheists, so assuming you haven't just made that statistic up, could you provide a reference?
so are you trying to make the argument that science is biased? you make all these little jabs at science and yet you don't back them with any sort of evidence. You inject all kinds of silly remarks into your responses that simply distract from the larger point. You still haven't shown me that science operates on the same assumptions that religion does. You have refuted no scientific evidence. You have only made claims which are either blatantly false, or display a complete lack of knowledge about science.
The only evidence you have produced that would support of your argument is the Bible. The bible must be assumed true for any of your arguments to work. You have failed to do so. The prophecies, which Jesus was said to have fulfilled, were described only decades after Jesus supposedly lived. The first Gospel was written 40 years after Jesus died, so, it would be fairly easy to make his story fit the prophecies of the old testament. Coupled with the fact that there is no evidence, other than the word of iron aged peasants, that Jesus ever actually existed makes the tale even more questionable. All you are left with at this point is a collection of stories which was slapped together with political agendas in mind, has been shown to be wrong on almost all of it's testable claims, is at best a second hand account of the life of Jesus, was produced well after the death of it's subject, and must be assumed true for it to be useful evidence.....please show me how this is in any way similar to science.
Stop making silly accusations and debate the facts. Show me that there is a conspiracy in the scientific community to push evolution despite it's falsehood, or show me how theists use empirical evidence to further their claim. Those are the only two ways you can demonstrate the claim of this debate. Using the Bible, or any holy scripture for that matter, is not empirical evidence. If it was, you would have to accept that the Koran is as true as the Bible.
prophets and the old testemenent said things. Jesus came and did each and every one of those things. the prophecies were like your science predictions. and jesus came and proved them true.
and "scientific research" may say the bible is false, bit like 99% of scientists are atheist so...
Where do we begin here.....
Are you seriously equivocating the works of literally millions of independent scientists who have written 100's of thousands of papers independently verifying the theory of evolution to a book hacked together due to political ideology? We can repeat every single experiment that has ever been done on the theory of evolution and come up with the exact same results as the papers had. Since you are unwilling to come out and say "sciences are fixed and fake", you must then admit that they are not. So you would have to concede that the papers published in scientific journals are peer reviewed data which expresses the findings of scientists. You would also have to admit that such data constitutes evidence; thus in order to disprove evolution, you would have to disprove said evidence or provide your own evidence to counter the hundreds of thousands of pieces of data.
now, on to the bible. The bible is a collection of books, which have a lot of discrepancy, inconsistency, and even conflicting works. Even the Gospels have conflicting narratives. Only two of the canonical Gospels, Matthew and John, are alleged by tradition to have been written by eyewitnesses, the rest are simply re-tellings. In order of the bible to have any empirical value it would have to make testable predictions (it doesn't). So the bible, in and of itself, is not evidence for anything. So you are left with what evidence is there for the bible itself. Well, none really. The majority of scientific claims it makes is plainly false. It's account of the origin of the world is plainly false (age of the earth, the human species, etc...). It's historical accounts are false (the global flood). The bible even got the value for pi wrong......So what truth value does the bible hold?
So why should we take anything that the Bible says as truth. If you assume the bible to be false, what evidence is there to repute such a claim? In science we tell you exactly what evidence is needed to disprove a theory and we go out and look for such evidence. In theology, one does exactly the opposite. So please tell me again how science and religion use the same arguments.
the Harry Potter books are written by the same person, and at around the same time unlike the bible books. religion provides deeper understanding then blind faith on many things. some people are fine with blind faith, others are not. if your not, there are many things you can read to go deeper then blind faith and better understand God.
So since all of the Harry Potter books dovetail so nicely, they are all true? Justifying one book with another, when none of them give any proof is beyond absurd.
Science makes predictions that are tested. If you don't believe something, look it up and you can go through the experimental proof. Blind faith in science is not a good idea, but no scientist asks for blind faith. They provide evidence and proof and show their work. This is in stark contrast to religions that say "This is the truth and if you don't believe it you will suffer an eternity of fire and poking!"
anatomy and physiology, molecular biology, and paleontology/anthropology.
that is your proof for evolution. mine for religion is called the books of Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John, the old testemenent prophets, and eyewitness accounts of visions and miracles.
if you say "some guy wrote them all at the same time" I could say the same about you sciences. I can say it is fixed and evolution has no proof, are those sciences are not real. I won't say this because like saying that about the bible it is stupid.
the bible is a COLLECTION of books written by DIFFERENT people at DIFFERENT times. and they all match each other, and fulfill each other wonderfully.
see another way science ans religion are alike. just as I can't say anatomy and physiology, molecular biology, and paleontology/anthropology are all one fixed fake science, you can't say the seperate books if the bible are fixed and fake.
Alex, please explain to may how comparative anatomy and physiology, molecular biology, and paleontology/anthropology have not produced evidence to support evolution. Why is it that you, with an obvious ignorance of the facts involved about evolution, get to claim something like "evolution has no evidence" without actually disproving any of the evidence that there is for evolution? Aren't you simply making an argument based on assertion alone. You want proof for Diego and yet you offer none to disprove evolution.
In 1985, forensic analyst John F. Fischer and Nickell addressed some of the pseudoscience that the image has attracted (For example, some claim to have discovered faces, including that of “Juan Diego” in the magnified weave of the Virgin’s eyes-evidence of nothing more than the pious imagination’s ability to perceive images, inkblot-like, in random shapes). The whole paper is called "a folkloristic and iconographic investigation".
In 1982 art restoration expert José Sol Rosales conducted a stereomicroscopic study and found that the canvas appeared to be a mixture of linen and hemp. He also found the primer and identified it as calcium sulfate and found that the artist used a “very limited palette,” the Rosales stated, consisting of black (from pine soot), white, blue, green, various earth colors ("tierras”), reds (including carmine), and gold. Rosales concluded that the image did not originate supernaturally but was instead the work of an artist who used the materials and methods of the sixteenth century.
Catholic scholars, including the former curator of the basilica Monsignor Guillermo Schulemburg, even doubt the historical existence of Juan Diego. Schulemburg said the canonization of Juan Diego would be the “recognition of a cult”.
During a formal investigation of the cloth in 1556, it was stated that the image was “painted yesteryear by an Indian,” specifically “the Indian painter Marcos.” This was probably the Aztec painter Marcos Cipac de Aquino who was active in Mexico at the time the Image of Guadalupe appeared.
In December 1999, an abbot called Gullermo Shulenburg who was once associated with the shrine of Our Lady of Guadalupe dispatched a five-page report to the Vatican stating that there was no evidence apart from legend for the existence of Juan Diego.
I can easily say the same thing your saying about the bible (made up and fixed) about evolution. no solid proof either way besides Jesus in my case, and your theory in your case.
another way science and religion can have similar arguments.
any proof to back that up about Diego?
Alex, I can't believe I have to point this out.... You should know why Jesus fulfilling any of the old testament prophecies is not compelling evidence at all. You do know the writers of the new stuff had access to the old stuff and can make stories fit...
I'm familiar with juan diego, and I know that there are a lot of people within the church that doubt the existence of Diego. The tilma was later analyzed and found to be made of hemp and linen, not cactus fibers. It was prepared with a brush coat of white primer (calcium sulfate) and then painted with distemper (pigment, water, and a binding agent). So what exactly is so spectacular about a piece of canvas painted with a simple form of paint? None of the other supernatural claims of it have ever been substantiated either...
back then the educated was a very small amount of the general people.
look at the old testament prophesies and how jesus fulfilled them. look at the cloak of Juan Diego, and how it stayed intact over hundreds of years. evidence that science can't answer, so ignores, and says it isn't evidence, making up wild stories.
Alex, if you Google the subject, you will find that a large majority of the educated public already believed in heliocentrism during the time of galileo. It's however irrelevant.
You still haven't demonstrated how exactly the claims of science are somehow the same as those mode by the church given that there is empirical evidence for scientific claims and no such evidence for theological claims. How are they the same when a process of peer review is in place to test scientific claims and yet the church relies on holy divinity for its revelation?
You have stated that evolution and God have the same amount of evidence which is plainly false. You then tried to divert the conversation into some nonsense about the church and science changing its claims. The only result I can see coming out of this line of reasoning is that science upheld it's tenants by conforming to new information, and religion having to accept concensus of the masses or science.
If you want to show that religion and science are on the same footing, you'd have to demonstrate that scientific evidence doesn't constitute any higher level of evidence than scripture, that religion is able to make the same kinds of testable predictions as science, or that science is necessarily dependent on religion.
I sure hope scientists know more about science then religion. on science the church generally has done what is commonly accepted by the scientific community and the common people. Galileo was not accepted until later. when the church arrested him for Heresy, science didn't believe his theories.
The church has made multiple claims which were later disproved by science, and due to strength of the evidence that science presents, the church was forced to change its position. Geo-centrism was a widely accepted, church promoted theory until galileo rediscovered the helio-centrism. Evolution is now an accepted theory by the Catholic Church as well as accepted by many other Christian sects.
The fact that the church has always been behind science, by no small margin, and that religion has never once produced a usable or provable hypothesis/theory of how the world operates should show you that the two operate on a very different standard of evidence and therefore a very different line of reasoning. So how is it that science would use the same arguments as religion?
there are no infallible people that exist on this planet, what a ridiculous discussion.
The church cannot speak as it is not a person. Generally wouldn't the Pope make the pronouncements?
the pope has only spoken ex cathadra twice. the church has spoken and taught more infallible teachings.
Then why are you claiming there have only been 2-3 infallible statements made? "Popes have made many, many infallible pronouncements" unless you are claiming to be a more knowledgeable source than the Catholic Exchange.
I've read that page before PsychDave
how am I wrong?
historybuff there is a difference between papal infallibility and the church infallibility.
I'm not sure where you got your information about infallibility, but you are wrong.
so the church could be wrong about virtually anything? gays could be the correct way to live and you are a sinner. divorce was supposed to be very easy to get and you are wrong to prevent it. abortions are Gods will. if the pope isn't infallible on these issues then you have no reason to believe the church is right.
let me sum it up for you doctrine=infallibility. infallibility is very rarely claimed, and the pope thoughout history has only used it 2 or 3 times.
why? your argument seems to change to suit you. the church is infallible and cannot be wrong, but at the same time they can preach sins for hundreds of years.
if they can be wrong about that they can be wrong about anything.
How do you figure?
The answer to your question Dave. no it is not saten prevailing Over the church.
you have to be sorry for your sin. you must show contrition. obviously they didn't. also they were being absolved of sins for money. since this was itself a sin, then these sins were not forgiven and they went to hell for them. or purgatory for a long time.
and you didn't answer our question.
historybuff I'm not sure where you got your knowledge of the faith, but is wrong.
"you can only be forgiven of a sin that is confessed." think about it. I go to confession once a month, or every other month. in confession I can't remember all my sins I did that month, even of I did, there wouldn't be time to confess them. think about the people who go to confession once a year. they will only say less then 1% of their sins. those sins they didn't say would not be forgiven? no, as long as you are sorry, and confess some sins, all your sins are forgiven. the priest isn't lying when he says "ALL your sins"
You are speaking English, just not logically.
If the Pope sins, and gets the rest of the church to sin, is that not Satan prevailing over the church? It's a pretty simple question, so what part is giving you trouble?
I'm I speaking English here? the pope can sin, and does sin. this means that he can sin. infallibility not comming into play means the pope is not infallible when he sins.
sinning is never ok with God and could never be done infallibly
you can only forgive a sin that is confessed. obviously they didn't confess if they didn't think it was a sin.
you say that satan cannot prevail over the church. getting the church to teach blasphemy and encourage sin for centuries isn't him prevailing?
and how you get into heaven and how long you stay in purgatory is a core belief. it is a central part of the Catholic faith. how can infalliblity not apply? does infalliblity only apply when it suits you?
So if priests committed human sacrifices with the Pope's blessing, as long as he didn't make a public announcement about it they are OK with God and still infallible?
whoa there. clam down a minuet. first people don't go to hell for committing a venial sin. in confession all sins are forgiven if you are sorry for all of them. the priest says "I forgive you for these, and all your sins" so a sin done without knowledge of it being a sin is forgiven. and it is saten prevailing, but only him prevailing on people, not the church, since infallibility does not come into play.
the church led millions of people to sin. these sins were not forgiven since they didn't think they were sins. so millions and millions of people went to hell because the church told them to do it. that isn't Staten prevailing?
popes can get tempted by saten, and they did. it's not a question of infallibility when it's people that do the sins. the only time infallibility comes up is when it's an official Church statement on faith or morals, or a doctrine. there was no doctrine saying you can buy that certain blessing, so infallibility is not a question. infallibility rarely happens.
If the Pope gave indulgences in exchange for money, and this was sanctioned by the bishops and cardinals, in what way are any of them individually or collectively infallible? Is the getting forgiveness for your sins and getting into heaven not a matter if morals and faith?
this was an accepted church practice for hundreds of years. popes encouraged these sales. if hundreds of years of popes encouraged sin, that isn't the devil prevailing over the church?
by church I mean people in the church, the pope, cardinals, bishops. wasn't really clear on that.
So the church is not infallible and had been tempted by Satan to sin for many years.
thanks for the clarification. in reality a bunch of unsatisfied catholics said to the church "Hey church, your sinning" the church said "dammit we are" then the church stopped the sins they are doing, because they were sins, not cause of pressure to do something. I guess you could call it pressure to not sin, but that's always there.
no. I'm saying millions of angry Catholics forced the church to do something.
so you saying the church forced the church to do sonething??
you asked us to tell you when the church changed because of social pressure. papal indulgences were common practice for a long time in Catholic church. then the Reformation happened. there was huge pressure to reform and they were forced to stop selling indulgences. they only stopped selling them because they were forced to.
selling blessings and other religious things, like a sacrament is a sin. just as you can't sell someone a confession, you can't sell or buy a papal indulgence. this is because one cannot buy your way onto heaven.
the church said "wait a minute, selling these papal indulgences is a sin, we got to stop sinning" so they stopped because they realized what they were doing was wrong. it had nothing to do with a scam to get people to convert. if the church wanted more people, we could go all prodestant and say all you need for heaven is faith, a you can lie, steal, and kill, but still go to heaven If you say Jesus is God.
the church stopped selling papal indulgences after a couple million of its people converted over it.
the Pope has now said that people should be allowed to have communion after a divorce. that is most certainly due to social pressure.
what change did the church make because if social pressure? you may have a point, but I think there was still thinking involved in the changes the church made.
Science changing its views is one of the primary aspects of science that allows it to progress. It's because of evidence and reason that it must change its views. Religion has no such internal mechanism for change. If you look at the changes the church has made, they have been largely made due to social pressure, not empirical data and reasoning.
This alone should shown you how the reasoning of these two schools of thought differs greatly. One is vested in the process of acquiring knowledge, the other is vested in being an authority regardless of evidence.
But one of those kids claims God told him the answers, so how could he possibly get anything wrong?
Scientists as men have done bad things, and so have religious people. we have had many bad popes. the Church itself has never arrested any inocent people, and claimed infallibility.
but when we see bad in both the church and science, the church gets the blame. it's like two kids getting an F, and only one kid getting in trouble.
That aside, scientists are men and therefore as flawed as anyone else, so they don't tend to claim to be infallible. I was under the impression that God guided his church to keep Satan from triumphing over it. I would say imprisoning or killing innocent people would be Satan winning that battle.
There is an inherent flaw in your question since "science" isn't a single group able to do anything. But to answer the spirit of the question, to the best of my knowledge no, the scientific community has never imprisoned someone for disagreeing. Some scientists have done terrible things, but I am not aware of any time in history that a body of scientists have wielded the kind of power the church has.
Do you have an example of when that has ever happened?
you telling me science Never imprisoned people for going against them?
You have pointed out times that science has admitted they were wrong and moved on. Do you believe the church did as readily? Imprisoning people for disagreeing hardly seems to be a way of seeking the truth, does it?
yes. science admits it was wrong all the time. that's how science advances.
and no science and religion are nothing alike. science only believes in what can be proven. it is interested in testable results and learning the truth.
religion thinks it already knows the answers and so attempts to suppress other thinking. it only adjusts itself when it literally has no choice.
and science will just admit they were wrong? no, science and religion are similar, and you can say religion is the science of God.
They start in very different places, leading to different responses to being wrong. Science starts with asking a question and looking for the best answer. Science goes with the explanation that best explains the world around us. Yes, they periodically get things wrong. But when a scientist makes a mistake, it gets corrected and we move on.
Religion starts from the assumption that they have the answer to every question from an all knowing God. That means that there is no need to ask questions since God has already spoken. When religion gets something wrong, they fight tooth and nail to resist changing. Once that fails, they find a way to alter their beliefs so that they were never wrong to begin with.
my point is science has changed its views and the church has changed its views, bit only the church gets in trouble. and the change was never faith/morals/doctrine.
both believed The earth was the center of the universe, but the church gets in trouble. science gets away with with it. science believed that frogs came from lakes, and flies came from rotting meat. but nobody uses that to show how little we know about science.
Scientists use evidence and reason. Christians use the unsupported words of Jesus and the book written about the unsupported teachings of Jesus.
1. There is empirical evidence for evolution. There is great scientific consensus on the subject. It's supported through genetics more than ever. You have already displayed a complete lack of knowledge on the subject in other threads, so why should we listen to you when you assert that "evolution doesn't make sense"? I don't know anything about chaos theory and it makes no sense to me; however, I can acknowledge my own ignorance on the subject and not dismiss it simply because I don't understand it.
2. No one cares if the church changes its mind. It's just an argument to illustrate how little you can actually know about God. I think this is mostly a moot point.
Well, the Catholic Church was opposed to street lights for quite some time, because they said that God has wanted the night for dark and the light for day.
Also, where is your evidence for God? You just say he has evidence, but you give no examples. You then say that evolution has no more credible evidence than God does, but multiple times in other debates have we shown you the evidence for evolution, of which you haven't refuted, and any evidence that you have proposed has been refuted.
and I could(and have) point out lots of examples of things the church was wrong about. you just compartmentalize and ignore the facts. going over them again won't help.
god has absolutely no evidence. it has stories. it has a book that has considerable problems as a reliable source. it has people claiming they heard things or saw things. but none of these are confirmed other than by people who have a vested interest in conforming them. evolution has huge amounts of proof. the fact that you would say that makes me certain you have no idea what evidence there is for evolution.
1. alright then I can say two things there 1. "God has evidence" 2. "evolution has no more evidence then God"
2. Give me an example if the church being wrong about Jesus and God. like a changed doctrine. when the church has changed it has only been on science things like the sun not revolving around the earth.
1) we don't say that because God is against common sense you shouldn't believe it. we say there is no evidence that God exists. if there is no evidence for something you shouldn't believe it. that is not the same thing.
2) because science has never claimed to have all the answers. science is based on the knowledge that we will be forever discovering new things and changing our views. religion is based on the belief that you already know the answers. that God did X and Jesus did Y. as a result when we point out the massive flaws in religion it is bad because your religion would collapse if you accepted new information.
1. they say God goes against common sence so they don't believe, and they say science does not need common sence.
2. they say it's ok for science to be wrong when new info is found, but when we say the same about the church it ain't ok. it's very bad.