It Is Ridiculous To Say That Religious Beliefs Conflict With Science

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
"not sure about mammals, but this does happen with reptiles at times."

Can anyone point to any study that this happened, or may have happened in humans?

[/ QUOTE ]


How would you demonstrate this happened in humans? Statistically, "She's lying" would be a HUGE favorite over "parthenogenesis" even if *I* was the woman in question.

[Max Raker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"Follow the logic in the post"

Their is very little logic in reading the ramblings of man who is generalizing something he truly has no concept of, god.

[/ QUOTE ]

1. god is all powerful

2. amputees exist

therefore god wants amputees to exist

[/ QUOTE ]


I don't see why god has to be all powerful. What if he was just REALLY powerful? He would really like if their were no amputees but he isn't THAT powerful.

I find it strange that all religons that I'm aware of that exist today have a god that is all powerful. I guess if you were a man 2000 years ago and you had a choice in religon you would pick the one with the strongest God.

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
1. god is all powerful

2. amputees exist

therefore god wants amputees to exist

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the bible believers would say that each person has a guardian angel, and so the actual amputee population represents only a subset of the total amputee population, with the difference being people who should have been amputees but who were saved from the accident or whatever by their guardian angel.

The interesting thing about this is that there could indeed be statistical tests done to measure different populations to see if the above is true. The only problem of course is that even among "gods people" only a very small percentage actually follow the law and participate in the contract which entitles them to the benefits such as guardian angel protection and such.

but amputee protection is a bad way to test. a much better test would be observance of the land sabbath and soil depletion and crop health and stuff like that, although I'm not sure science and religion are at odds on this point, although we have made the choice that taking a 15% productivity hit is too much to pay for healthy soil/crops.

[MelchyBeau]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"not sure about mammals, but this does happen with reptiles at times."

Can anyone point to any study that this happened, or may have happened in humans?

[/ QUOTE ]


How would you demonstrate this happened in humans? Statistically, "She's lying" would be a HUGE favorite over "parthenogenesis" even if *I* was the woman in question.

[/ QUOTE ]

i'm in the group that believes that If these people existed, and I believe Jesus existed, just not as the son of god, that the story might have been a coverup for John and Mary doing the nasty before they got married.

The only record of a 'virgin birth' in mammals was done under laboratory settings with mice, and this was done semi artificially. There is no record of this happening in nature. I really just thought this was an interesting occurance. And while we argue whether or not a supreme being exists nature continues to amaze us with what it is capable of doing.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

See where I am going with this?


[/ QUOTE ]

That God uses natural law to accomplish His will?

The following two statements appear contradictory to me:

[ QUOTE ]

It is not a scientific statement to say "God never intervenes". YOU CANNOT USE SCIENCE TO COME TO THAT CONCLUSION.

You can however, use statistics and evidence evaluation to form a probability judgement that God has never intervened


[/ QUOTE ]

[Zygote]

laws cannot be bent - not even by god. god cannot change 1+1=2, the wave function, causality, etc.

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]
laws cannot be bent - not even by god. god cannot change 1+1=2, the wave function, causality, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

If there is a god, I doubt that he/she would be bound by any such "rules". It's one of the many benefits of being omnipotent.

[Zygote]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
laws cannot be bent - not even by god. god cannot change 1+1=2, the wave function, causality, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

If there is a god, I doubt that he/she would be bound by any such "rules". It's one of the many benefits of being omnipotent.

[/ QUOTE ]

nonsense. lets hypothetically say you have omnipotent power. how can one theoretically go about manipulating those examples?

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
laws cannot be bent - not even by god. god cannot change 1+1=2, the wave function, causality, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

If there is a god, I doubt that he/she would be bound by any such "rules". It's one of the many benefits of being omnipotent.

[/ QUOTE ]

nonsense. lets hypothetically say you have omnipotent power. how can one theoretically go about manipulating those examples?

[/ QUOTE ]Hypothetically, 1+1=2 is really an if then statement. If the combinatory properties of ones is such that 1 + 1 = 2 then 1 + 1 = 2. So hypothetically speaking God would just change the properties of combination. I know it's a stretch and requires a new idea, but still.

[Zygote]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
laws cannot be bent - not even by god. god cannot change 1+1=2, the wave function, causality, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

If there is a god, I doubt that he/she would be bound by any such "rules". It's one of the many benefits of being omnipotent.

[/ QUOTE ]

nonsense. lets hypothetically say you have omnipotent power. how can one theoretically go about manipulating those examples?

[/ QUOTE ]Hypothetically, 1+1=2 is really an if then statement. If the combinatory properties of ones is such that 1 + 1 = 2 then 1 + 1 = 2. So hypothetically speaking God would just change the properties of combination. I know it's a stretch and requires a new idea, but still.

[/ QUOTE ]

like you said, if the properties of the combination are changed then its a whole new law.

even if the properties are changed though, this in no way takes away the fact that 1+1=2