Uh, I care to differ. When it comes to any religion, people fall on a gradient; there are those who are devout and strong defenders of their faith, and there are those who have their doubts but feel that such-and-such religion is best for them.

There are some Christians who 'know' and 'say' that God created the world in seven days, just as it is told in Genesis.

And here I am 'saying' and 'knowing' that God did not create the world in seven days; rather, it was a slow process that occurred over a period of time (through theistic evolution).

And in summing up, a few points already stated and a few of my own:

+ Once applied to unexperimental circumstances beyond their scope, Probably all scientific laws are fallible (and this is why progress can occur)…. unlike religion, they just dont claim otherwise.

+ Science will probably never explain everything (and doesnt claim to), but it is capable of casting doubts and posing questions. Which, i think, was OpticalLiam's point by telling the multiverse theory.

+ It is scientific for something to need to be experimentally proved before it is believed, not the other way around.

+ Science does not try to remain constant. Everything 100 years ago, is far outdated by modern theories (quantum, string theory, etc) and the same will probably be true in another 100 years.

+ Who says Atheism has to be based on science? Even if that is how i base my own belief. If you use an anti-science argument then scientists can also go into specifics and use the agnostic argument.

+ Heres my impression: Agnostics believe nobody yet knows the truth, not that it cant be found. Atheists believe that religion = delusion and does not play a healthy part in society.

+ Despite all the pro-religion argument, the Agnostic flaw still remains…. "why is your religion any more correct?"…. and from there the Atheist argument can be built.

+ The scientific evidence of a religion's absolute "truth" is totally outweighed by the scientific "false" or "questionable" argument. I dont think many self respecting scientists would claim whats written in the Bible or Koran to be fundamentally & scientifically true…. without being paid alot of money anyway.XD…. so stop using that argument….

Pheonix101, you summed it up pretty well, unfortunately it is impossible to get through to Omicron1.

As I already noted, there always have and always will be theories that go against what has been previously established in science. That's what makes it great, that's what science is all about. Science is always updating it's knowledge. Humans cannot possibly even begin to comprehend everything in this universe, yet you expect us to. I'm afraid despite what religion proclaims, we are not the center of the universe. We are insignificant beings.

In those areas you did not seem to use scientific or logic arguments at all, you simply brought the idea of God in when you got that point.

Religion != Science

You just went on about stuff we can't understand and just said "oh, it must be a creator". I was the person explaining all the scientific prinicples here for you (relativity, thermodynamics, multiverses, simulation theory). You simply did what a religious person does and point to a creator, ignoring any other possibilities.

I acknowledge the slight possibility of a creator as I have already said, but you seem to refute any of the scientifically based answers I gave that you asked for without any further investigation. For your knowledge, from one perspective the chances of being in a simulation are infinitely high.

I don't remember you using any scientific explanations or proofs for Christianity. Please quote me some.

How can you be blinded by the lack of something? Are you blinded by the lack of belief in the tooth fairy? Batman? Flying spaghetti monster? Lacking a belief in something simply opens your eyes up to all of the possibilities.

You could say I'm blinded by faith in Science, which it certainly does sound like here, but I assure you I don't always believe everything I'm told. I come up with my own beliefs. There are many parts of science that are just plain wrong.

Quite the opposite. I carefully dissected your arguments and answered almost every one of them. You on the other hand simply dodged many of my come backs and began asking me even more 'well answer me this!' questions.

And, the reasons I didn't come back after the last of your comments was because

a) I'd had enough

b) I was tired

c) I had been drinking

d) I was watching Casino Royale.

Please, when you come back with some answers instead of numbering them please quote the parts you answer to. It makes it much easier to read, as currently it's ambiguous.

Yes, if it's impossible to prove, then science abandons it. When I say prove, I mean scientifically, not just 'because some book says it is'.

I believe similarly, yet I don't have to bring in the idea of the supernatural when there is no evidence to support it.

What are you referring to?

Yes, we are and always will be. Hey, I can make up one of those too. "It is easier for an elephant to fit into a toolbox than for a religious man to enter the kingdom of reason".

Anyway, it's been interesting.

Didn't this begin as a debate about religion vs science? But it seems to have become one of Christianity vs science. Surely this argument is broader than just specific examples in the Bible against reasons in science?

I would describe myself as Agnostic, but I still respect those who have faith in following a religion. The initial arguments made good points that, in general, religion is not really comparable to science as they are very different in their bases. But I think by focusing on Christianity and specific examples within it, Omicron has hurt his side of the argument.

There's not really scientific proof for everything in the Bible - if the Earth was made 4000 years ago, and God sent a flood to kill all animals bar 1 pair of each, that Noah saved, is that really enough time for a single pair of each animal to repopulate the entire planet (and what about plant-life?). And the fact that 12 people were willing to die for Jesus is not proof of his returning from the dead - I'm sure more than 12 people died for Hitler and his ideals.

That being said - I don't necessarily believe that the Bible is a book of lies, but I do think its stories should be taken with a pinch of salt, many of them more as moral stories to help people live their lives in a good and kind way.

I personally think Richard Dawkins has some good points, but I don't like the guy - I think he is a hypocrite as he blasts the religious for the arrogant, unfaltering belief and they will not listen to other peoples' arguments, but he is exactly the same. Perhaps he feels that he has to fight fire with fire to get through to them, but I don't think this is the way to convince people to change their ideas at all.

Exactly Jay.

We get called closed minded because we ignore the tiny possibility of a God.

What religious people seem to miss is that ever since religion began science has spent years and years and years investigating its claims. After all those years of investigation science has concluded that religion has little value and time should be better spent investigating other things.

If you came to me right now with a theory about something, anything, it would have hundreds of times more credibility than religion - because it hasn't been investigated scientifically. I don't seem so closed minded now do I?

For example, I could say

"because I can see through something, I can walk through it"

Now to test that, I walk into a window. Ouch, but now I have tested that I know it's probably not true, so I discard that theory and create a new one.

"because I can see through something, I might be able to walk through it"

This theory holds more value, as I can see through air or water and walk through it, but I can see through windows but not walk through them.

That's how science works. In the end we are not closed minded at all, quite the opposite, we just investigate thoroughly and discard bad theories.

And, what's so good is that if there were any hard evidence of God to turn up, science would go through a revolution and refine all of its theories.

Even if he's a sadistic, infanticidal deceiver, eh? :(

Ok, now I'm tired.

But let's keep the subject of debate down to a minimum, shall we? You choose one topic, and I'll choose one topic. I'll answer as best I can what you ask on one subject, and you answer what I ask on one subject.

Here's my question: Is it scientific to establish and hold a theory without evidence (any and all theories on the creation of the universe) even when that theory goes against scientific law? If so, how so?

Specific points section (I'm not debating here)

->Jaythediv: Given a 4 year breeding cycle (less for some animals like rabbits, more for some animals like elephants and humans), over 4000 years (since Biblical chronology says that the end of the creation period was 6118 or so years ago) being 1000 generations provides plenty of time to create all the animals seen on Earth today.

Also, my point about the apostles is completely different from yours - the Apostles believed not only what Jesus taught, but also that He did all those miracles and rose from the dead. Would they die to witness for a fake - one who claimed to do miracles but didn't? I don't think so.

->OL:

1. You have not "explained" any basic scientific theories to me as you claim. I have been using such things as thermodynamics and relativity since the beginning of the debate; and the other two "theories" (multiverses and simulation theory) aren't scientific. (Look at your picture; do you have any evidence for either? If not, they aren't scientific theories, now are they?)

2. You keep claiming that I have abandoned reason because I believe Christianity to be true. This is not true. I do not follow blindly - I have questioned my faith many times in the past - yet I still hold Christianity to be the truth. I do this because of what I know and have seen - you are quick to discard faith, but I assure you that my faith is part of my belief - I have heard men and women that I know well talking about things that God has done in their lives. Just about everyone in my church, including myself, has seen something which qualifies as miraculous - from a teenaged boy who was healed of his football injuries while in the hospital, to a lady who heard Satan speak to her in a physical voice about the Mormon church - she thought it was divine, and converted to Mormonism then, but has since realized the true nature of that speech and is a great witness for the truth of the matter. My pastor's wife knows a woman who was healed of cancer, and I myself have experienced the Holy Spirit's direct influence on my life. Now, I know that you are thinking now that I am either deluded or lying, or that all the rest of these people are lying - but we are not. Unless eighty percent of America is deluded or has a habit of lying about this stuff, I assure you there's something special about this.

Something I read once said "It is the mark of great intelligence to be able to consider both sides of an issue at once and still be able to function" or similar. I have thought about your side of this debate, and I believe I know how you think about this issue. (Please correct me if I'm wrong) At least in part, you see all the religious beliefs in the world as equal - the Greek pantheon holds as much weight with you as the God of Christianity - and you think that all these religions are copying each other, and are all simply based on belief and blind faith. Partly due to this and partly due to your own reasoning, you regard it as much more likely that the world came into being of natural causes than that it came into being due to any one of these religions - after all, you've never seen a miracle or felt God's hand on you, and it is easy to discard all these stories as propaganda. In fact, I'd say you probably think I'm lying about the paragraph above this, and no matter what I say on the subject, you will continue to do so. You claim to be open-minded; can you open your mind in this area?

Omicron1:

Sorry to have misunderstood the bit about the Apostles mate. But maybe they didn't know if he was a fake? Is there proof that they did all die for him? Or could it even have been a story written as fiction, or exaggerated? I really don't mean to sound sacrilgious or anything here, just trying to put forth some alternatives. Also, please don't think i'm trying to be condescending at all, I don't think i'm any better or worse than you for not believing, I just think it's an interesting subject of debate.

Doesn't the Bible speak of Noah's children etc moving out, and joining/forming cities - where did all these people come from to make up all these cities?

I don't think there are many scientists that would claim that they really believe any of the theories about the creation of the universe are true, but instead put forward possibilities.

The most well-known being the Big Bang theory. This has come about because we can observe (atleast it appears this way) that all other galaxies etc in the universe are moving away from each other at a rate depending on their distance, known as the Hubble Constant. So, if we extrapolate backwards in time, we can go back to a point where, theoretically, all matter occupied the same point (singularity), which is reckoned to be about 14 billion years ago. No-one pretends to know what happened there, this is where the laws of conventional physics break down. But scientists try to give scenarios which perhaps could explain. In all probability, our minds probably aren't capable of understanding how everything began, or perhaps it was kick started by a God.

Do you agree that environment plays a huge role in religion? For example, i guess (perhaps wrongly) that you've been born into a family/society which believes in Christianity? If you had not, do you still think you would follow it? If perhaps you had been born in the middle-east somewhere, might you have become Muslim?

I can say that i've not been born into a very religious family, but i've not been tempted by any religion. Then again, i've not given any of them much chance. Although I did buy myself a Bible a few months ago which I started reading, but have not had time for it recently.

Please don't think that I, or anyone else here (I hope) is trying to tell you you're wrong, but just debating the opposing side.

Cheers,

Jason