The difference between science and religion

[o_e_l_e_o]

Then the archaeologists dug up ancient Jericho, and found that its walls had fallen flat, just like the Bible said.

Except that's a complete lie.

Leslie J. Hoppe (September 2005). New light from old stories: the Hebrew scriptures for today's world. Available here:

"The walls that he and Selling found dated to the seventeenth century BC and earlier - three to five hundred years before the Israelites emerged in Canaan."

"Her excavations showed that the walls found at Jericho were from the Middle Bronze Age (1950-1550 BC). She concluded that when the Israelites supposedly destroyed Jericho, the city was a small, poor, and unwalled settlement.

Miriam C. Davis (2008). Dame Kathleen Kenyon: digging up the Holy Land. Available here:

"In the time of Joshua, Jericho was a heap of ruins on which stood perhaps a few isolated huts."

"No evidence for defenses from the Late Bronze Age, the period of Joshua, was found."


And presumably we are just ignoring the fact that archaeological science has proven the world isn't 6000 years old, wasn't created in 7 days, there was no flood, there was no exodus, etc, etc? Cherry picking much?

But many people believe that evolution is true when the only place it is factually known to exist is in the theory itself.

Another complete lie.

Firstly, scientific theory does not mean "made up guesses" like you seem to think. Suggesting otherwise is at best disingenuous, and at worst plain stupid. A scientific theory is rigorously tested and fits all the available evidence, such as the theory of gravity, the germ theory of disease, and yes, the theory of evolution.

Secondly, evolution is known to factually exist because of the mountain of evidence for it. But if for some reason all the evidence from fossils, anatomy, molecular biology, genetics, biogeography, paleontology, etc, isn't good enough for you then that's OK - we have literally observed evolution happening in bacteria and insects.


Once again, I would suggest that you take your own advice and aim to achieve even the most basic level of understanding of a topic before offering your opinion on it:

Wake up and learn the things you talk about before you start spouting them out.

[1713889407]

1713889407

[1713889407]

1713889407

[1713889407]

1713889407

[Moloch]

I will tell you what the difference SHOULD be. Religion talk should not be allowed on this forum because this forum is about serious, real world topics.

Religion is a serious topic as long as people commit atrocities in the name of religion.

Science doesn't expect you to take anything on faith.  Everything is science is backed up by evidence you can check yourself.  That is how science works.  If you disagree with the evidence, you have every right to conduct proper research and get your findings published in a reputable periodical.  If your evidence shows you have a better theory for just about anything, you win a nobel prize!

Science doesn't just randomly invent evolution... it simply follows the evidence, and that is the obvious conclusion to the vast majority of people who view the evidence

[o_e_l_e_o]

Belief in science theories is just like religion. After all, religions have some facts in them just like science.

So you are just ignoring my previous post exposing everything you said to be a lie?

Standard religious behavior. I expected nothing and I am still disappointed.

[o_e_l_e_o]

Well, there are always going to be disagreements between experts.

Except there aren't. Everyone who has excavated that site agrees that the Biblical story of Joshua and Jericho is nonsense.

The daters of standard world dating, themselves, express that they are only using guesses to set up an organized standard. Currents date standards are flawed in various ways.

Except they aren't.

The evidence for the flood has been found all around the world, and is recorded in many cultural records as well as cave paintings.

Except it isn't. If you want to be taken seriously, try presenting some evidence to back up your claims, like I did.

The same mountain of evidence for evolution can much more easily be used to show creation, adaptation, and like-begets-like.

No, it absolutely can't.


You can waffle your unfounded nonsense as long as you like, but if you can't provide a single shred of evidence to support any one of your opinions, then they are just that - opinions. Not facts. Not the truth. Just baseless, incorrect, opinions. Exactly what we have all come to expect from you.

[BADecker]

Well, there are always going to be disagreements between experts.

Except there aren't. Everyone who has excavated that site agrees that the Biblical story of Joshua and Jericho is nonsense.

The daters of standard world dating, themselves, express that they are only using guesses to set up an organized standard. Currents date standards are flawed in various ways.

Except they aren't.

The evidence for the flood has been found all around the world, and is recorded in many cultural records as well as cave paintings.

Except it isn't. If you want to be taken seriously, try presenting some evidence to back up your claims, like I did.

The same mountain of evidence for evolution can much more easily be used to show creation, adaptation, and like-begets-like.

No, it absolutely can't.


You can waffle your unfounded nonsense as long as you like, but if you can't provide a single shred of evidence to support any one of your opinions, then they are just that - opinions. Not facts. Not the truth. Just baseless, incorrect, opinions. Exactly what we have all come to expect from you.

You ARE having your troubles, today, aren't you.

Regarding Jericho, for starters:
- http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2008/05/Did-the-Israelites-Conquer-Jericho-A-New-Look-at-the-Archaeological-Evidence.aspx
- http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2008/06/The-Walls-of-Jericho.aspx
- https://www.nytimes.com/1990/02/22/world/believers-score-in-battle-over-the-battle-of-jericho.html

Regarding age of the universe, you can find the papers of the scientists who started the idea of an old universe, where they claim exactly that nobody knows the age for sure, and that an old universe was set as a method for organizing scientific things... not because it had to do with the actual age of the universe.

Regarding evolution, a creation model easily matches all the evidence claimed for an evolution model; so, which is it? The exactness of complex cause and effect destroys the possibility of such a thing as random mutations suggested by evolution theory. Natural selection as suggested by evolution theory would have to be so extremely complex to produce life, that it would be way beyond human selection... as we can see by man's failed ability to create life from scratch; such indicates God rather than evolution. The flaw in suggesting that it was the long length of time that allows beneficial mutation accumulation, is that exact same length of time allows the greatly more prevalent natural corrections and detrimental mutations to destroy all the beneficial mutations.

You need to think a little rather than always allow yourself to be led by some kind of propaganda-filled political science.

[o_e_l_e_o]

Regarding Jericho, for starters:
- http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2008/05/Did-the-Israelites-Conquer-Jericho-A-New-Look-at-the-Archaeological-Evidence.aspx
- http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2008/06/The-Walls-of-Jericho.aspx
- https://www.nytimes.com/1990/02/22/world/believers-score-in-battle-over-the-battle-of-jericho.html

So the grand total of your evidence is two articles and one newspaper clipping, all written by the same guy, a known science denier and creationist (read: idiot), who never excavated the site. The best quote from those three nonsense articles is this:

"When the archaeology is correctly interpreted, however, the opposite is the case."

How convenient that he is the only one who can correctly interpret the data! How convenient! It's just a shame his interpretation is completely at odds with the evidence, the reports of the people who did actually excavate the site, and the wider scientific community.

Also, as a side note, when asked for evidence to back up your ramblings, linking to even more incoherent ramblings that are shunned by the scientific community is not really an effective tactic. Try some real evidence next time.


Also, do you actually believe Noah's ark is a true story? As in, you actually believe that all the animals in the world lived within walking distance of Noah's house? And after the flood, he toured the world in his boat, dropping the penguins off in the Antarctic, kangaroos off in Australia and raccoons off in America?

This is so stupid it cannot be believed by a thinking person.

[christina.arnigo]

Science is study according to the facts on what is existing. They discovered how everthing happens, how it moves, what will be the result and their giving conclusions in every experiment or study they make.
Religion is based on the Bible where everything are indicated, from the beginning of the world and the prediction on what will happen in future.
Religion and science are sometimes contradict because the conclusions of the scientists are different with what is in telling the Bible. But as the time goes by, there are studies that the science are mistakenly written and proved that what is written in the Bible are all true.
Bible is really a miracle that cannot comprehend by science

[darklus123]

Mathematics is not something invented by humans, it is discovered by humans... mathematics is the same in any language, on any planet... 1 + 1 = 2 is a provable concept and does not change based on societal norms or

Wrong cause in the binary system 1+1 = 10. Therefore mathematics is also evolving and changing just like religion

Science was discovered or created by mortals. Yes science provide evidences. Tho it changes over time when a new scientists discover new evidences.

Therefore science is not constant. Just like the "scientific theory" on how the universe created. There are a lot of them eg:  Bigbang theory and most of them provided evidence.

Now the question is which one to believe?
The best thing in this planet that i really love is that science can't provide evidence on its creator.

Which boils down to alot of philosophers and scientists to believe that there is someone immortal who created everything.

Disregard religion since most of it believes that there is really someone looking up there.

[SkyFlakes]

I think why religion can be taught as not universal because it is more of subjective while science is objective, that's why it becomes universal. I agree that the religion of today is not the sam with the future because beliefs of human is always changing. What humans believe today will be change. In comparison, science and mathematics is something that won't be change in the future. I am pointing out to those universally accepted concepts. Thus, I think the difference of two is that religion is subjective whereas science is objective.

[Moloch]

When scientists disagree, they publish papers with evidence and experiments to back up their claims... the winner gets a nobel prize

When religions disagree, they kill each other... nobody wins

[markj113]

Wrong cause in the binary system 1+1 = 10. Therefore mathematics is also evolving and changing just like religion

The maths is constant its just a different way of expressing things.

Ever heard the expression "a rose is still a rose by any other name" - same thing.

[Spendulus]

Mathematics is not something invented by humans, it is discovered by humans... mathematics is the same in any language, on any planet... 1 + 1 = 2 is a provable concept and does not change based on societal norms or

Wrong cause in the binary system 1+1 = 10. Therefore mathematics is also evolving and changing just like religion

Science was discovered or created by mortals. Yes science provide evidences. Tho it changes over time when a new scientists discover new evidences.

Therefore science is not constant. Just like the "scientific theory" on how the universe created. There are a lot of them eg:  Bigbang theory and most of them provided evidence.

Now the question is which one to believe?
The best thing in this planet that i really love is that science can't provide evidence on its creator.

Which boils down to alot of philosophers and scientists to believe that there is someone immortal who created everything.

Disregard religion since most of it believes that there is really someone looking up there.

I have some news for you, the fact that science is unchanging is not inconsistent with the fact that scientific representations vary when expressed in differing human languages (including but not limited to number systems) and is not inconsistent with the fact that our understanding of science evolves.

[darklus123]

Wrong cause in the binary system 1+1 = 10. Therefore mathematics is also evolving and changing just like religion

The maths is constant its just a different way of expressing things.

Ever heard the expression "a rose is still a rose by any other name" - same thing.

So is religion? There are a lot of different way of expressing it but it is still constant how does that sound

~

Then why is it that scientists explains different theories. For example to where did humans originated.

Some do say we originated from monkeys. While others say we came from fish. Both of them provided some "solid evidence" aswell.

And how will you explain to me that maybe if not half, a lesser number of total scientists believes the existence of god even if they can't provide a solid evidence.


Just from the philosophy that simply science can't explain anything.
Does that mean that scientists themselves are not consistent?  

[Spendulus]

....

~

Then why is it that scientists explains different theories. For example to where did humans originated.

Some do say we originated from monkeys. While others say we came from fish. Both of them provided some "solid evidence" aswell.

And how will you explain to me that maybe if not half, a lesser number of total scientists believes the existence of god even if they can't provide a solid evidence.


Just from the philosophy that simply science can't explain anything.
Does that mean that scientists themselves are not consistent?  

The history of science is full of wrong ideas, and of their eventual rejection.

The way to understand, ask what is a scientific hypothesis?

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothesis

There is little more than this, except that various social and political factors certainly can influence science.

An example is "global warming." There is no formulated hypothesis capable of being tested, yet it is widely considered science. It is more accurately a "belief."

A scientist can belief in many things which are not testable by scientific hypothesis.

[darklus123]

The history of science is full of wrong ideas, and of their eventual rejection.

The way to understand, ask what is a scientific hypothesis?

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothesis

There is little more than this, except that various social and political factors certainly can influence science.

An example is "global warming." There is no formulated hypothesis capable of being tested, yet it is widely considered science. It is more accurately a "belief."

A scientist can belief in many things which are not testable by scientific hypothesis.

That is really what confuses me alot. If they hypothesis was based on the scientific method conducted by the scientists therefore both theorom were just a possibility. Which one will I believing if both hypothesis have solid evidences.

That only shows that science is not consistent because if thats the caseI believe that both scientists should came up with the same hypothesis.

Note that the only constant in this world is change.


If that is the case that scientists will just based their hypothesis to their beliefs then the study is not a fact

[BADecker]

When scientists disagree, they publish papers with evidence and experiments to back up their claims... the winner gets a nobel prize

When religions disagree, they kill each other... nobody wins

It was the morals of the religious that were trying to stop the scientists who were developing the first atomic bombs, which were used to kill and maim hundreds of thousands of Japanese people, and cause crippled children and grandchildren because of atomically "burned" reproduction organs.

[Moloch]

When scientists disagree, they publish papers with evidence and experiments to back up their claims... the winner gets a nobel prize

When religions disagree, they kill each other... nobody wins

It was the morals of the religious that were trying to stop the scientists who were developing the first atomic bomb

Just stop... stop making up lies... please

If you want people to believe in your religion... you should stop lying... your book says not to lie

Pics or it didn't happen

[o_e_l_e_o]

It was the morals of the religious that were trying to stop the scientists who were developing the first atomic bombs

You mean like Lt Gen Leslie Groves, son of a pastor, who directed the Manhattan project? Or J. Robert Oppenheimer, a Jew, who was lead scientist? Or maybe Robert Serber, also a Jew, who wrote The Los Alamos Primer?

Not only were the morals of the religious not trying to stop the development, but they were the ones who were in charge of the development.

Another 100% made up lie brought to you by BADecker. Do you not realize that people know how to use Google? Your nonsense can be refuted by a 5 year old.

[Earl Ragnaar]

Science in a way starts and closures with human interest to specific inquiries. These inquiries prompts revelations yet in the event that you ask me, those disclosures are not simply arbitrary event but rather fated supernaturally to be so. Religion then again depends on confidence in the heavenly that may not require logical demonstrate to confirm it. It exists in itself.
As you probably are aware, we are made of fragile living creature and soul. No one has ever demonstrated that we are made of spirits. We can see our tissue. We can't see our soul. We can feel it. When we dream, we realize what we can see and we comprehend that we are not just fragile living creature and bones. It is in this way evident that science and religion must cooperate to find and settle the puzzles of our human advancements. They should not battle but rather coordinate.

[markj113]

So is religion? There are a lot of different way of expressing it but it is still constant how does that sound

Most religions seem to be incompatible with each other.

Religious nut jobs are forever killing every one else in the name of their one true god, same cant be said about mathematicians.