July 21, 2006
-
Religion vs. Science?
I just came out of another debate with another “atheist,” who I am going to have to conclude is either amazingly stupid, or is deliberately trying to goad me with insulting remarks. I don’t know which it is, but since this comes up a lot, I am going to address the issue:
“Just because science conflicts with your religion does not invalidate science.”
By “science” he means evolutionism. I have actually heard this quite a bit from the reds. It seems to be one of their catch phrases that they throw out in order to feel intellectually superior. By saying something like that they totally skirt around the fact that evolutionism is a religion, it is not part of science, and they are in fact themselves religious because evolutionism is taken entirely on faith. Evolutionism calls for more faith than any other religion I can think of, because it is rife with miracles (such as life from lifelessness, the creation of stars, etc) yet it does not attribute them to a deity. Anyways, this argument is really tiresome, because it also implies that Christians disbelieve in evolutionism for religious reasons and actually dismiss real scientific evidence. The truth is, there is no evidence for evolutionism. It is unproven and unprovable. Evidence is not something that can be willingly ignored. If evolutionism ever was proven, we would simply not be Christians and that is all there is to it. So the “atheists” are left with three options:
1. Assume that we are ignorant (highly common).
2. Assume that we are ignoring actual proof for evolution because we dont want to believe it.
3. Actually consider what we have to say.
Atheists usually opt for 1 or 2 because 3 is unthinkable. They generally assume that we are ignorant or stupid and rapidly become angry when they find out we are not, assuming they are capable of looking passed all of the negative stereotypes which are engrained in them. Option 2 seems to be their second favorite, which is really rathar foolish because the implication of option two would be that we actually believe in evolutionism yet refuse to believe in it because we don’t want too. The problem with that notion is that if you believe in something you believe in it. So no, you cannot just dismiss actual evidence because of religious reasons.
The truth is, there is actually more evidence for Santaclause than for evolutionism, although personally I do not believe in Santa either. Evolutionists believe that they represent the apex of enlightenment because they have already decided that science and atheism must never contradict, and that is the standard by which they decide what is science and what is not. Truthfully they are nothing more than Gaians. Classical forms of pantheism such as Druidism, Shinto, and Buddhism posit that the universe is self creating. Ancient believers in traditional pantheistic faiths typically view themselves as parts of nature and servants of the earth, which manifests in the careful avoidence of violating “nature” at the expense of human prosperity and convenience. Some pantheistic religions even involve the sacrifice of children. Now, all of these traits can be seen in modern evolutionists. They believe in a universe which is self creating (the creative process is not attributed to anything outside of the universe, but rather to the universe itself), and they definitely place the assumed welfare of nature ahead of human interests and progress. Some examples of this include the strong tendancy among evolutionist leaders to advocate human population control, as well as the scare over “global warming,” and the environmentalist movement. They also believe that humanity is just another animal, which harks back to the classical pantheist belief that humanity is somehow a part of nature, which the leftists also think as some kind of wild natural creative force. The aborting of unborn babies also harks back to ancient rituals of child sacrifice. Evolutionists typically have no qualms with killing unborn children because according to their religion sex and death are the tools used by the force of nature to make life improve.
So evolutionists are not the enlightened unbiased scientific thinkers which they tout themselves to be, they are nothing more than Gaians, and in truth their religion would die out to little more than a memory if it were not continually breastfed by the government. The reds use the public schools to perpetuate the atheistic or humanist worldview. The process of indoctrination begins in Kindergarten, and lasts all the way through college. They use the public school system as a means of asexual reproduction. Part of the reason for this is because they know that the average person on the street is not going to be perceptive if they pulled him over and said, “Hey, let me tell you how atheism has changed my life,” or “Would you like to get to know atheism a little better?” Another reason is probably because they have a negative birth rate. In Europe, the people are generally Godless and evolutionists, and the death rate surpasses the birth rate. Most of them do not wish to have their hedonism mitigated by the unfortunate birth of an unwanted child, so they opt for abortions. As I side not I would also like to point out that the population of Europe is increasing in spite of the negative birth rate due to immigration from Islamic countries. So Islam will gradually replace the atheism in Europe unless the atheists can indoctrinate Moslems. But I digress, it’s time to review the main points:
1. Christians are not anti-science.
2. We do not ignore evodence for religious reasons, we disbelieve in evolutionism because of a lack of evidence.
3. Evolutionism is unproven and unprovable, and if it could be proven there would be no Christians.
4. Evolutionism is not science, and all of its practitioners are actually Gaians, not superior intellectuals.
5. The evolutionists reproduce asexually through the public school system, using OUR money to indoctrinate OUR kids into THEIR faith.
Is anyone else indignant about this besides me?
Comments (8)
Solid main points. I lost indignance a long time ago; let’s face it, they’re a bunch of fools. What good does it do to be indignant about fools? God is using evolution to tell the church something, but we’re just not getting it.
Hi,
You are invited to review and comment my new book Science, World, and Faith. I have posted its complete text on my blog http://www.xanga.com/henryjackson
Henry
Number 5 irks me most of all.
haha…so i am nothing more than a “gaian.” fun. i’m always in the mood for a little name-calling. it made me chuckle.
i’m going to take it that THIS was the post to which you were referring? if it’s not, i kindly ask you to direct me to the more comprehensive one.
first off, you didn’t actually address any of the scientific claims evolutionary theory relies on. you stated (in different words), “evolutionists say this happened. it sounds ridiculous because i cannot conceive of such a thing or understand the reasons. i’m not sure how god even fits into this. therefore, i will not believe it.”
you say that there is no empirical evidence for evolution, and you say that there is no way that it can be proved. wrong. the first one i will not argue with you anymore considering i’ve already done an extensive job of such. the second one i think you opened yourself up to. recently, you said that if you saw a lizard turning into a dog, you would have to change you mind. again, i find this an extremely ridiculous case to try and prove evolution, but IF it happens, you will have to change your mind. therefore, there is a way for it to be proved (making it scientific i might add). we’ll just have to wait…
what is your evidence for the factual validity/inerrancy of the bible? you seem to rely on the factual validity when it comes to issues concerning science and politics. so where does this validity for the bible come from?
does it come from itself?
frankly, i am confident that i am right. does my own testimony validate that statement? or do you have to indepedently verify if? just because i say that i am right doesn’t make it so. we need be able to independently establish my sources, whether or not these sources are credible, and whether or not there is a logical connection between my data and my conclusions. if the bible is correct, then scientific investigiation SHOULD verify the things that it says, including the age of the earth, the age of the universe, the order of creation, etc. also, i would just like to remind you that you employ this logic in every other facet of life i believe (you seem to do so anyways). for example, let’s say that tomorrow you wake up and go to your sister and punch her in the face. based on past experience, would you think that something good or something bad would happen? would she hug you? or would she retaliate?
god’s hand should be all around us, and according to your worldview, we should find evidence for a 6000 year old world (or up to 10000) as well as evidence of a worldwide flood. if we couldn’t find evidence for it using the same science that brought you this computer and your car, that would mean that god would be hiding himself from the world. but then, why would he do this? he would simply be undermining his own aims of saving his children.
god wouldn’t do that. maybe it’s satan.
however, god is clearly more powerful than satan, so he could readily dispose of the darklord’s schemes. however, by letting satan “do his thing,” god further undermines his aim of saving as many of his “children’ as he can. maybe he wants to test us. to see who among us truly love him. then, the ones who were able to go through life without changing their minds once would get to stand closest to me in heaven because they followed my rules the best.
i’m sorry, but that doesn’t sound like love. it really doesn’t.
if you had this kind of relationship with ANYONE else, i’m fairly certain you would feel belittled and offended. granted, i’m not you so i can’t be sure, but it seems the logical outcome. i’m done for the night. i apologize if any of this comes off as condescending or patronizing. you really aren’t looking for evidence so much as you are trying to undermine the evidence to fit a preconceived worldview. this is not scientific. i felt i had to say it. i also apologize for jumping around with the comments. there were just a lot of things i thought needed to be addressed.
happy camping
@easalien - Actually no, this is old and since I said I had an entry “on the way” I certainly could not have been referring to anything from 2 years ago. Of course if you want to see some more hardcore type stuff and are unwilling to wait for my promised post where I would address those questions and concerns of yours, you are welcome to go back to my “index of all entries” and search for my debate with Dr. Dutch. My only debate with a professional evolutionst that I have on Xanga. Indeed, the purpose of this entry was to rant against someone who annoyed me greatly, although I cannot remember who. The secondary point of this entry was apparently to demonstrate how 1) evolutionism is nothing new as a belief system and 2) it is another religion. So it is not a matter of religion vs. science, but of one religion vs. another. The point was not to prove Biblical inerrency. Although it may be in order to produce an entry specifically addressing the flood in more detail. For starters, I would consider the sedimentary layers stacked smoothly one upon another, the erosion of the Grand Canyon, the erosion features of the Sahara, the presence of fossilized sea life on top of the Himilayas, etc, to be rather compelling evidence for the flood.
@jmsnooks - i have a tendency to get a little antsy. i’m sorry. i will wait for this entry of yours prior (i realize this post-hopping must have been rather messy). considering you will be writing a comprehensive post, i will leave with this rebuttal to your flood evidence:
your flood ideology does not take into account that the amount of water needed for the flood to have occurred. i have recently come across some calculations projecting that such saturation would have made the surface of the earth approximately 500 degrees celsius due to the atmospheric pressure. this is clearly uninhabitable for any of our current complex lifeforms.
also, i don’t know what erosion features of the grand canyon and the sahara you’re specifically referring to. however, with that said, the pyramids, which existed i believe approximately 60 years before the flood have shown no signs of a catastrophic flood. egyptian accounts at the time don’t even seem to indicate there was a worldwide flood.
the presence of the fossilized sea life on the himalayas can easily be explained by the interaction of tectonic plates in which two pieces of continental lithosphere collided and were unable to efficiently subduct, thereby lifting each other as well as some of the surrounding seafloor topography upwards to displace the seismic pressure. the seafloor that was lifted is now the bed of the fossilized sea life you see on the mountains. for a similar example of how these fossils can exist at levels higher than the sea, you can look up the uplifted fossil beaches on the coast of southern california. they demonstrate basically the same thing.
@easalien -
@easalien -
No problem, perhaps I ought to accelerate the process and spend a little less time with God of War 2. At any rate, the arguments against the flood are based upon a misrepresentation of how the Biblical flood actually occurred. As to the amount of heat generated by rain, the Bible never states that the rain was the primary cause of the flood. A great deal of the water was originally beneath the earth and it ruptured out when the flood occurred. It is true that it also rained. As it is, there is sufficient water on the earth now to cover it all, if the earth had a more level crust. The Bible says that the mountains rose up and the valleys sank down during the latter stages of the flood, causing much of the water to collect in deep basins which today we call oceans. Evolutionists believe that tectonic plates have moved over millions of years and we believe that they moved in a few months. The point is that the reference to ‘mountains rising up’ explains why we have fossils of sea life at the tops of mountains. The fact of the matter is that the evidence indicates that at the very least most of the world was at one time beneath the water, and this is consistent with the Biblical flood account. In addition, there are a great many historic accounts and mythological traditions that teach of a world wide flood. The Great Pyramid and the Sphinx are the only man made objects in Egypt for which there is no historical account of their creation. It is evident that they serve symbolic functions, and that no person was ever buried in the great pyramid. At any rate, if you look at them http://www.infomideast.com/mythology/greatpyramid.jpg you can see that they were once beneath the water and that they have erosion features. It is much more evident on the Sphinx because the outer layer on the Great Pyramid was for the most part stripped away. You can see the erosion, and the discoleration left by the water as it receded away from the Sphinx. But again, clearly I ought to write a comprehensive entry about the flood.
if you’re talking about the early density stratification of early earth’s compository materials, i can see where you’re coming from in terms of a world that was mostly covered by water. you’re right when you say that the young (relative to a 4 billion year timeframe) earth was covered with water, but it was dotted by sectors of volcanic activity that allowed granitic rock to form the continents. however, i feel that i should mention that there was probably (i believe it’s absolutely) no complex life on the planet at this time. according to the evidence, scientists suggest with strong confidence that there was not even an atmosphere at this time when earth was covered by water, thus making the earth extremely inhospitable to life (certainly for the already complex organisms found in genesis 1). if we are to go with the claim that the water “burst from inside the earth,” where in the bible do you justify this claim?
Genesis 7
1 The LORD then said to Noah, “Go into the ark, you and your whole family, because I have found you righteous in this generation. 2 Take with you seven [e] of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and two of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate, 3 and also seven of every kind of bird, male and female, to keep their various kinds alive throughout the earth. 4 Seven days from now I will send RAIN on the earth for forty days and forty nights, and I will wipe from the face of the earth every living creature I have made. http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%206:5-9:17;&version=31;
i see no indication of there being a seepage of water from inside the crust as you propose. also, i should mention that this “shell” of water inside the earth is physically untenable considering water’s density is much lighter than that of even the lightest granitic crust. it would have leaked through by the very virtue of its lightness. again, this is based on the density stratification i mentioned earlier.
also, there IS a historical account of the pyramid’s construction. apparently its construction was commissioned by king khufu in 2550 b.c. (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/pyramid/explore/gizahistory.html). in response to the image you sent, there is no doubt that some of it has been weathered. however, i don’t think this can be attributed to the flood. if you look at the top of the sphinx, you’ll notice that it is significantly in better condition than the lower parts. however, if you compare this to the great pyramid, the erosion marks in the khufu pyramid appear to be even higher than the top of the sphinx (~70 ft tall compared to 140 m.). i find this rather strange.
i look forward to reading your post on the flood. maybe then i could undertsand how you reconcile these seeming discrepancies.