Science v Religion - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com - Debate Anything The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com
frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

DebateIsland.com is the best online debate website. We're the only online debate website with Casual, "Persuade Me," Formalish, Traditional Formal, and Lincoln-Douglas online debate formats. Using DebateIsland's beautiful, mobile-friendly, and easy-to-use online debate website, you can debate politics, debate popular topics, debate news, or debate anything in a large community of debaters. Debate online for free using DebateIsland, a globally leading online debate website that is utilizing Artificial Intelligence to transform online debating.


DebateIsland.com is the best online debate website. We're the only online debate website with Casual, "Persuade Me," Formalish, Traditional Formal, and Lincoln-Douglas online debate formats. Using DebateIsland's beautiful, mobile-friendly, and easy-to-use online debate website, you can debate politics, debate popular topics, debate news, or debate anything in a large community of debaters. Debate online for free using DebateIsland, a globally leading online debate website that is utilizing Artificial Intelligence to transform online debating.

Science v Religion

Debate Information

Theists often have a go at atheists for using science to prove religion wrong. The usual retorts come out...."science is flawed", or "science is a religion", or "God invented science", "what about the missing link", etc. etc.
Can any theist honestly say that he or she has ever plucked up the courage to even read scientific publications that prove what atheists have been trying to tell them for ages? I bleeding well bet not.

Anyway, can any theist cite any scientific discoveries that were proven to be wrong using religion?
xlJ_dolphin_473JGXdebatePROWe_are_accountable
Debate Details +
«13



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
11%
Margin

Details +



Arguments

    Arguments


  • SandSand 234 Pts

    Wiki - "Historically, the Catholic Church has often been a patron of sciences. It has been prolific in the foundation and funding of schools, universities, and hospitals, and many clergy have been active in the sciences. Historians of science such as Pierre Duhem credit medieval Catholic mathematicians and philosophers such as John Buridan, Nicole Oresme, and Roger Bacon as the founders of modern science."

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

    Science is never versus Religion.
    There are different perspectives that bring reality into focus.

  • SwolliwSwolliw 399 Pts
    @Sand
    Science is never versus Religion.

    Yes, but has religion ever toppled any scientific findings.
    OakTownA
  • SandSand 234 Pts

    >>>Yes, but has religion ever toppled any scientific findings.<<<
    I don't know what you are referring to.

    Saying Religion vs Science is like saying Science vs Philosophy.
    I see it similar to this:



    Happy_KillbotDevonJGXdebatePRO
  • SwolliwSwolliw 399 Pts
    @Swolliw
    >>>Yes, but has religion ever toppled any scientific findings.<<<
    I don't know what you are referring to.

    Saying Religion vs Science is like saying Science vs Philosophy.
    I see it similar to this:

    I don't know where you got that wacky diagram from: probably from one of those airy-fairy philosophy books.
    The problem with it is that there is no way in the world that one could overlap "evidence" and "reality" into the "Theology" circle.
    What a bleeding joke that is.
    Plaffelvohfen
  • SwolliwSwolliw 399 Pts
    @Sand
    Science is never versus Religion.
    There are different perspectives that bring reality into focus.

    ....and religion has never brought reality into focus, in fact it will always distort reality.

    The Catholic Church, in common with all its seedy, deceptive practices has only ever used science to manipulate a view for its naive and gullible followers. If the Catholic Church is so into science, why has it never bothered to publish all its in-depth research into the existence of God?....I'm sure they must have volumes by now.

    PlaffelvohfenScienceRulesJGXdebatePRO
  • SwolliwSwolliw 399 Pts
    @Sand
    Saying Religion vs Science is like saying Science vs Philosophy.
    I see it similar to this:

    I don't know what airy-fairy philosophy book you got that nonsense from but the problem with the circles is that science overlapping evidence and reality into theology is one of the funniest jokes I have seen for a while.
    Come on. When has theology ever used evidence or reality? Only when it gets out its ridiculous "pseudo-science" to concoct stories they think will amaze their glazed-eyed sheeple who will accept anything shoved down their throats.
    JGXdebatePRO
  • SandSand 234 Pts

    Hebrews 11:1 - "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."
    2 Corinthians 13:1 - "This is the third time I am coming to you. EVERY FACT IS TO BE CONFIRMED BY THE TESTIMONY OF TWO OR THREE WITNESSES."

    We should take reality out of science, since Einstein says science never confirms anything.
    "Nature.....It never says "Yes" to a theory."


    >>>Come on. When has theology ever used evidence or reality? Only when it gets out its ridiculous "pseudo-science" to concoct stories they think will amaze their glazed-eyed sheeple who will accept anything shoved down their throats.<<<

    Do you mean when science shoved the earth sitting on two elephants and a turtle down our throats?
    Or when science shoved raw meat generates flies down our throats?
    What about the spontaneous combustion of people science?
    What about the thousands of planted ape and human fossil fragments to prove evolution trick?
    Remember Sasquatch was the missing link of evolution?
    Or when the lochness monster was proven by scientists?
    How about the 100s of times science proved aliens?
    Then there is the luminiferous aether trick, the Aether Wind, Biosphere 2..............yeah, shoved down our throats.
    Plus the 100s of millions of research dollars and government experiment suing is mind-blowing.
    So when you say concoct stories the number one culprit needs to be Science.

    If we have glazed eyes, then science people are completely blind.
    Science only gains bulletproof credibility in the eyes of the younger generation, because they are so naive to the failed, hidden, and mistakes of science.
  • SandSand 234 Pts

    Hebrews 11:1 - "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."
    2 Corinthians 13:1 - "This is the third time I am coming to you. EVERY FACT IS TO BE CONFIRMED BY THE TESTIMONY OF TWO OR THREE WITNESSES."

    We should take reality out of science, since Einstein says science never confirms anything.
    "Nature.....It never says "Yes" to a theory."


    >>>Come on. When has theology ever used evidence or reality? Only when it gets out its ridiculous "pseudo-science" to concoct stories they think will amaze their glazed-eyed sheeple who will accept anything shoved down their throats.<<<

    Do you mean when science shoved the earth sitting on two elephants and a turtle down our throats?
    Or when science shoved raw meat generates flies down our throats?
    What about the spontaneous combustion of people science?
    What about the thousands of planted ape and human fossil fragments to prove evolution trick?
    Remember Sasquatch was the missing link of evolution?
    Or when the lochness monster was proven by scientists?
    How about the 100s of times science proved aliens?
    Then there is the luminiferous aether trick, the Aether Wind, Biosphere 2..............yeah, shoved down our throats.
    Plus the 100s of millions of research dollars and government experiment suing is mind-blowing.
    So when you say concoct stories the number one culprit needs to be Science.

    If we have glazed eyes, then science people are completely blind.
    Science only gains bulletproof credibility in the eyes of the younger generation, because they are so naive to the failed, hidden, and mistakes of science.
  • SwolliwSwolliw 399 Pts
    @Sand
    Do you mean when science shoved the earth sitting on two elephants and a turtle down our throats?
    Or when science shoved raw meat generates flies down our throats?
    What about the spontaneous combustion of people science?
    What about the thousands of planted ape and human fossil fragments to prove evolution trick?
    Remember Sasquatch was the missing link of evolution?
    Or when the lochness monster was proven by scientists?
    How about the 100s of times science proved aliens?
    Then there is the luminiferous aether trick, the Aether Wind, Biosphere 2..............yeah, shoved down our throats.
    Plus the 100s of millions of research dollars and government experiment suing is mind-blowing.
    So when you say concoct stories the number one culprit needs to be Science.

    I've said it before and I'll say it again...you need to actually build a fire pit and get rid of all those ridiculous pseudo-science comics so there will be no going back...sort of like burning your bridges really :).
    Every one of those examples is totally made up nonsense.
    Name one reputable scientist who has ever claimed any one of those findings?

    Allow me to answer that question.....None, not one, zilch, zippo.
    Surely you can come up with better arguments than that.
    Hey, interestingly enough, you must read the new post called "Pornography And Religion", it sort of covers what I just covered here...it'll really curdle your blood.
    DeeJGXdebatePRO
  • SandSand 234 Pts

    I presume you are a millennial then.
  • DeeDee 2592 Pts
    @Sand

    Science only gains bulletproof credibility in the eyes of the younger generation

    Bet you whistle a different tune when you type away on your laptop which came through scientific innovations , no doubt when you or a loved one need the latest medical technologies you find the science behind it credible enough to avail of it it 
  • markemarke 372 Pts
    @Swolliw

    You refer to science which 'proves the Bible wrong.'  That is wrong.  There is no scientific evidence which irrefutably proves the Bible wrong.  Scientific postulates based upon unproven assumptions offer support for atheists' claims that the Bible is in error, but assumptions are not scientific facts.
    JGXdebatePRO
  • SwolliwSwolliw 399 Pts
    @Sand
    I presume you are a millennial then.

    Like everything that you presume, you are wrong.
    Those comics just aren't getting you any further, are they?
  • SandSand 234 Pts

    Same tune, different stanza.

  • SandSand 234 Pts

    If you are not a millennial, then did you read the newspapers on those reports?
  • DeeDee 2592 Pts
    edited August 22
    @Sand

    Same tune, different stanza

    Translation from Sand to English : I've no defence ....as usual 
  • SwolliwSwolliw 399 Pts
    @marke
    You refer to science which 'proves the Bible wrong.'  That is wrong. 

    Absolute nonsense, the Bible is completely riddled with mistakes.
    The very first sentence is wrong to start with since science has irrefutably shown that there was no creation involved in the formation of light.
    The universe is not 6000 years old, it is 13.5 billion years old; science has proven so.
    There was no such event as Noah's Ark, it is a mythological story.
    Life was not formed in one day, science has proven so.
    man formed billions of years after the first life forms, proven by science.

    I could go on Infinitum but the question you dodged is, name one piece of science that has been overturned by religion. 
    RS_masterAlofRIJGXdebatePRO
  • The thing is that scientific and mathematical is actual proof which you can trust. If in a lab, there is proof that when scientists mixed hydrogen atoms with oxygen atoms to make water and if you know that equations back it up, you can trust the proof. If any random human with no scientific proof just writes a book in why oxygen and hydrogen make water, I doubt that he is true. That is the comparison of science and religion. Science is the study of the Earth. Science is the study of the universe. Science is the study of reality.
    xlJ_dolphin_473ScienceRulesAlofRIJGXdebatePRO
  • marke said:
    @Swolliw

    You refer to science which 'proves the Bible wrong.'  That is wrong.  There is no scientific evidence which irrefutably proves the Bible wrong.  Scientific postulates based upon unproven assumptions offer support for atheists' claims that the Bible is in error, but assumptions are not scientific facts.
    @marke The bible states that god created the universe. Science suggests there was no time before the big bang therefore, there was no time for god to create the universe. The bible suggests that god created the animals. Science suggests that eventually, there were molecules as complicated as DNA and then evolution took over.
    xlJ_dolphin_473
  • @RS_master
    You are absolutely right. Religion is a set of beliefs. Science has no beliefs, as if something is proven wrong, it gets replaced by a different theory.
    RS_masterAlofRIJGXdebatePRO
  • SandSand 234 Pts

    >>>The very first sentence is wrong to start with since science has irrefutably shown that there was no creation involved in the formation of light.<<<

    I would like to see your reference for "no creation involved in the formation of light".

    Let's take your viewpoint and say that the Bible is made up.
    So this person who wrote the creative days is just guessing or stuffing random stuff in a book.
    The Bible lists 10 major stages in a particular order.
    1 - a beginning
    2 - primitive earth in darkness, heavy gases, and water
    3 - light
    4 - an expanse or atmosphere
    5 - large areas of dry land
    6 - land plants
    7 - luminaries affect the atmosphere to bring seasons
    8 - sea monsters and flying creatures
    9 - wild and tame beasts, mammals
    10 - man

    The chances of doing this on your first try are 1 in 3,628,800!
    So, to say the writer just happened to make up a list with the foregoing events in the right order without getting the facts from somewhere is not realistic.


    >>>I could go on Infinitum but the question you dodged is, name one piece of science that has been overturned by religion.<<<

    Scientists use to say the earth and the universe have always existed.
    The Bible has always maintained both having a beginning.
    Scientists have changed now, with evidence of the universes expanding proves a beginning.




  • romir7romir7 80 Pts
    edited August 24
    @RS_master

    So do u think that Hinduism is non -scientific?

    Ok say me is Yoga non scientific??.......

    Is Zero u heard right 0 (zero) is non-scientific LoL??.......

    Peace
    Har Har Mahadev
  • TKDBTKDB 667 Pts
    @Swolliw

    Science is being handicapped by the anti Religious activist.
  • SwolliwSwolliw 399 Pts
    @TKDB
    Science is being handicapped by the anti Religious activist.

    In which case, science is being absolutely crippled by the anti-atheist activist.

    Come on....dish it out and I will chuck it back with interest.
  • markemarke 372 Pts
    @RS_master

    marke The bible states that god created the universe. Science suggests there was no time before the big bang therefore, there was no time for god to create the universe. The bible suggests that god created the animals. Science suggests that eventually, there were molecules as complicated as DNA and then evolution took over.

    I answered this once but don't know where my response went so I'll answer it again.  It is not science which suggests life just somehow miraculously originated on earth without God.

  • ScienceRulesScienceRules 608 Pts
    edited August 25
    @RS_master
    You are very correct. Couldn't see how someone could believe in all the BS written in the Bible. And yes it's the study of reality based on experimental observations and not based on a set of beliefs.
    Lover, hunter, friend and enemy
    You will always be every one of these
    Nothing's fair in love and war.
  • There are scientists who are atheists.  There are scientists who are theists.  There are scientists who are agnostic, and there are scientists who fall between each of these categories.  
    And then there are people who are not scientists who agree with scientists who are atheists, and there are people who are not scientists who agree with scientists who are theists, and there are people who are not scientists who agree with the scientists who are agnostics.  And there are people who are not scientists who fall between each of these categories.
    Many fields of science are quite technical.  Take the science of genetics for example.  A geneticist might say he as gathered all sorts of evidence which supports some particular claim.  The will draw conclusions from the evidence and write a paper on it.  The average person who is not a geneticist will not understand the data.  Yet, depending on the biases expressed by the scientist and whether or not those biases fall in line with the biases of the non-scientist who is reading the claims of the scientist, that non-scientist will agree that there is evidence, even though he or she does not understand the evidence.  

    I might have you all know that if you do not understand the evidence, you don't have evidence for your beliefs.  
    Someone please prove to me that the molecules RNA and DNA can form in nature without having been produced by a living cell.

    Someone tell me how all of the matter of the universe came into existence containing their its various properties when the singularity that existed before the universe began had an infinite density. 

    If matter itself comes into existence, then you can’t invoke matter as the cause of the origin of the material universe. (Stephen Meyer)

    "The material and spacial universe is expanding. The matter which the universe contains is becoming more and more dispersed. There is a curvature of space throughout the universe that is caused by the gravitational forces of matter. If we were to wind back the clock to the beginning of time, we find that the matter becomes so tightly packed and the curvature of the space, so tightly curved that eventually, according to the "Field Equations of General Relativity", solved by Steven Hawking and Roger Penrose, we find that we come to a point of infinite curvature of space, which implores an infinite density of matter. We know that the quantity of matter is finite, as we know there is space between matter. The result is we are left with all the matter of the universe contained in zero space." (I place this in quotations because it is a paraphrasing of a lecture by Stephen Meyer. See link below)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7pk9oDrpf6k

    The conclusion here being that if you have zero space, what you have is absolutely nothing. You can't put something into nothing.

    But let us imagine that you could put everything into nothing. After all, density is nothing more than a relationship between mass and volume. If there is no space, density becomes obsolete. So what?

    So let all the mass be broken down to its finest components. Let all of it collapse to the point of infinite density. What do you have? You have a single object. This object will not have any properties whatsoever, as there is no space in which to display them, even if it could. There would be no light, no heat, it would not be governed by mathematical rules, no physical laws. There would be no restraints, and no physical boundaries.

    And God said, "Let there be light".


  • marke said:
    @RS_master

    marke The bible states that god created the universe. Science suggests there was no time before the big bang therefore, there was no time for god to create the universe. The bible suggests that god created the animals. Science suggests that eventually, there were molecules as complicated as DNA and then evolution took over.

    I answered this once but don't know where my response went so I'll answer it again.  It is not science which suggests life just somehow miraculously originated on earth without God.

    @marke
    There is actually scientific theories about how life was created. For example, this is one I believe:
     A few seconds after the big bang, the first atom formed: hydrogen. Then gradually, due to reactions, more atoms and molecules were formed such as helium, lithium, boron, carbon, nitrogen, oxygen... Gradually, the atoms became more complicated like tenessine needs 117 electrons, oganesson needs 118. With the atoms, not surprisingly, chemical compounds formed like water is one, CO2 is one. Eventually, DNA was formed. From there, evolution takes over
  • romir7 said:
    @RS_master

    So do u think that Hinduism is non -scientific?

    Ok say me is Yoga non scientific??.......

    Is Zero u heard right 0 (zero) is non-scientific LoL??.......

    Peace
    Har Har Mahadev
    @romir7 Yoga and meditation have scientific proofs, yes. But hinduism says that when you meditate or do yoga, you get closer to god. That is hinduism, whereas science does not say it brings you closer to god, it says that yoga benefits your wellbeing. 0 has nothing to do with hinduism.

    Conclusion: hinduism is not scientific.
  • markemarke 372 Pts
    @RS_master
     There is actually scientific theories about how life was created. For example, this is one I believe:
     A few seconds after the big bang, the first atom formed: hydrogen. Then gradually, due to reactions, more atoms and molecules were formed such as helium, lithium, boron, carbon, nitrogen, oxygen... Gradually, the atoms became more complicated like tenessine needs 117 electrons, oganesson needs 118. With the atoms, not surprisingly, chemical compounds formed like water is one, CO2 is one. Eventually, DNA was formed. From there, evolution takes over
    No.  Science does not prove molecules, atoms, or atomic particles just appeared from nothing.  That is silly speculation, not science.

  • marke said:
    @RS_master
     There is actually scientific theories about how life was created. For example, this is one I believe:
     A few seconds after the big bang, the first atom formed: hydrogen. Then gradually, due to reactions, more atoms and molecules were formed such as helium, lithium, boron, carbon, nitrogen, oxygen... Gradually, the atoms became more complicated like tenessine needs 117 electrons, oganesson needs 118. With the atoms, not surprisingly, chemical compounds formed like water is one, CO2 is one. Eventually, DNA was formed. From there, evolution takes over
    No.  Science does not prove molecules, atoms, or atomic particles just appeared from nothing.  That is silly speculation, not science.

    Well actually the universe started as a particle itself. Quantum fluctuations are a part of quantum physics. @marke
  • markemarke 372 Pts
    @RS_master
    Well actually the universe started as a particle itself. Quantum fluctuations are a part of quantum physics. 
    I don't happen to agree with your self-serving secular supposition.
  • marke said:
    @RS_master
     There is actually scientific theories about how life was created. For example, this is one I believe:
     A few seconds after the big bang, the first atom formed: hydrogen. Then gradually, due to reactions, more atoms and molecules were formed such as helium, lithium, boron, carbon, nitrogen, oxygen... Gradually, the atoms became more complicated like tenessine needs 117 electrons, oganesson needs 118. With the atoms, not surprisingly, chemical compounds formed like water is one, CO2 is one. Eventually, DNA was formed. From there, evolution takes over
    No.  Science does not prove molecules, atoms, or atomic particles just appeared from nothing.  That is silly speculation, not science.

    Please say this BS somewhere else. Ever heard of quantum physics? Know what it means? 
    GaneshaJGXdebatePRO
    Lover, hunter, friend and enemy
    You will always be every one of these
    Nothing's fair in love and war.
  • marke said:
    @RS_master
    Well actually the universe started as a particle itself. Quantum fluctuations are a part of quantum physics. 
    I don't happen to agree with your self-serving secular supposition.



    @marke, is there any reasoning for your disagreement?
  • marke said:
    @RS_master
    Well actually the universe started as a particle itself. Quantum fluctuations are a part of quantum physics. 
    I don't happen to agree with your self-serving secular supposition.
    Self serving secular suppositions? Are you kidding me? 
    Lover, hunter, friend and enemy
    You will always be every one of these
    Nothing's fair in love and war.
  • romir7romir7 80 Pts
    edited August 29
    @RS_master

    Haha okay u consider Hinduism non scientific......
    Oh u plzz don’t u know where is Yoga originated from  and it is a way of life....

    See when people speak without knowledge I get angry most lol so plzz read from where yoga is originated haha.....When does science say that does science say lol is it a living being give me the name of one scientist who said clearly that Science takes u away for god....

    Actually u all people are using science as a very sophisticated way to get out of this but afterall u all don’t know that science is itself practicality reality.....

    Oh zero has nothing to do???umm lack of knowledge....who discovered zero??...Aryabhatta right and he was obviously Brahmin being an greatest astronomer and mathematician.....Have u heard about Ramanujan have u????......

    See first of all think twice to say anything to Hinduism give me one point yes one single point where you could completely disapprove Hinduism as scientific.....

    Haha Science didn’t sayed anything u all people are using it like anything.....
    Challenge me if u can give me one single point where u can prove Hinduism as non scientific...

    Peace
    Har Har Mahadev 


  • DeeDee 2592 Pts
    @marke

     Science does not prove molecules, atoms, or atomic particles just appeared from nothing

    What’s nothing? When you explain that how do you conclude something cannot come from it ?
    GaneshacarryrocksJGXdebatePRO
  • RS_master said:
    marke said:
    @RS_master

    marke The bible states that god created the universe. Science suggests there was no time before the big bang therefore, there was no time for god to create the universe. The bible suggests that god created the animals. Science suggests that eventually, there were molecules as complicated as DNA and then evolution took over.

    I answered this once but don't know where my response went so I'll answer it again.  It is not science which suggests life just somehow miraculously originated on earth without God.

    @marke
    There is actually scientific theories about how life was created. For example, this is one I believe:
     A few seconds after the big bang, the first atom formed: hydrogen. Then gradually, due to reactions, more atoms and molecules were formed such as helium, lithium, boron, carbon, nitrogen, oxygen... Gradually, the atoms became more complicated like tenessine needs 117 electrons, oganesson needs 118. With the atoms, not surprisingly, chemical compounds formed like water is one, CO2 is one. Eventually, DNA was formed. From there, evolution takes over
    There is no evidence that DNA has ever been manufactured outside of a living cell.
  • marke said:
    @RS_master
     There is actually scientific theories about how life was created. For example, this is one I believe:
     A few seconds after the big bang, the first atom formed: hydrogen. Then gradually, due to reactions, more atoms and molecules were formed such as helium, lithium, boron, carbon, nitrogen, oxygen... Gradually, the atoms became more complicated like tenessine needs 117 electrons, oganesson needs 118. With the atoms, not surprisingly, chemical compounds formed like water is one, CO2 is one. Eventually, DNA was formed. From there, evolution takes over
    No.  Science does not prove molecules, atoms, or atomic particles just appeared from nothing.  That is silly speculation, not science.

    Please say this BS somewhere else. Ever heard of quantum physics? Know what it means? 
    Please explain Quantum Physics please.  How does it work?
  • romir7romir7 80 Pts
    edited August 29
    @Sonofason
     :D why she should explain u??...
  • romir7 said:
    @Sonofason
     :D why she should explain u??...
    Well, I really can't say if it is a matter of if she "should" explain it to me.  I think it's more of a matter whether or not she CAN explain it to me.  You see, many people will espouse the validity of a scientific claim without actually understanding the science.  Instead, like many religious people, they will believe what they are told, simply because the claim is made in the "name of science".  Well, that doesn't fly with me.  I cannot believe something is true, unless I see evidence that it is true.  If a person does not understand the evidence that they think is supposed to validate a claim, they really don't have any evidence of anything at all.  So why should I believe that quantum physics is valid.  It is my understanding that everything that comes to exist must have a cause for it existing.  Quantum physics denies this fact, yet I've not been convinced that this is true based on the evidence I've seen.  Have you got evidence to convince me otherwise?
  • romir7romir7 80 Pts
    edited August 30
    @Sonofason ;
    Yes obviously she could explain it or not matters here but you seems to not believe in Quantum Physics then why she should explain u??
    ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................
     You see, many people will espouse the validity of a scientific claim without actually understanding the science.-----yes agreed
    ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................
     Instead, like many religious people, they will believe what they are told, simply because the claim is made in the "name of science"-completely true
    ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................
    See Quantum physics is an absolute understanding of mind till which we can actually think to things to exist....So quantum physics is rather not based on any 2-3 proofs it is wholly based on evidence and is affected in every field of yourself what you see in surrounding........
    ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................
    See science itself gives us evidence on everything the science is never existed without evidences or proofs...See disproving science is simply pointing the Human intelligence of what we have got naturally...
    ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................
     It is my understanding that everything that comes to exist must have a cause for it existing.  Quantum physics denies this fact, yet I've not been convinced that this is true based on the evidence I've seen-----

    See everything is UNCERTAINITY nothing can be 100 % certain-The nature is very symmetrical and we are trying to understand from uncertainties and predictions that what we should do we should completely trust on science----see people forget that science after all has given us the device which u are using to message me...See people fly thousand miles due to science....Many dis -beliefs like horoscope etc is eradicated by psychology and science.....SCIENCE IS NOT A THING WHICH IS RATHER SIMPLY WRITTEN BY ONE IDEOLOGY OR LIKE....IT IS CRAFTED BY LAKHS OF SCIENTISTS DUE TO THEIR PASSION OF KNOWING EVERYTHING THEY ARE ABLE TO DO SO AND THUS WE SHOULD ALSO NOT SIT THAT WONDERING WHO IS HIGHEST INTELLIGENCE TILL WHICH WE CANNOT ANSWER IT SO AFTER ALL SCIENCE IS ONLY THING WHICH CAN  GIVE US SOME ENTHUSIASM TO KNOW MORE AND MORE....

    .................................................................................................................................................................................................................
     It is my understanding that everything that comes to exist must have a cause for it existing----See this thing is not provable to single side no one knows what it is so we should not discuss on what at last on rather side we don't know what it is!

    ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................
    See I HAVE OBVIOUSLY GOT EVIDENCE OF SCIENCE YOU ARE DEBATING FROM INTERNET AND ANY DEVICE,right???? 

    ITS YOUR EVIDENCE....haha

    ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................

    See things are not perceivable by sense of humans like quantum physics, micro biology etc but its not like they are wrong it is fully provable things....
    So the people who are keeping science in between are fools....
    ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................

    God Quotes - 758 quotes on God Science Quotes - Dictionary of Science  Quotations and Scientist Quotes

    So the SCIENCE IS NEVER AGAINST ANY BELIEFS............. 

    source:-google

    signing off...

    Peace
    Har Har Mahadev
  • romir7romir7 80 Pts
    edited August 30
    Right now Science is like

    Between u all......
    Science:- plzzz u all leave me aloneeee!!!let me talk with Einstein I have many more important discussions there plzzz.....lol :D
    Haha 
    carryrocks
  • @Sonofason
    Well I know what I spoke about there and I know that much about quantum mechanics as is required to understand that.

    So talking bout the creation part, at first there is the cosmic microwave background, (which is a kind of echo of the big bang). Then expansion of the cosmos takes place which when imagined backwards, hints at a Big Bang-type origin. Also the abundance of the primordial elements,(helium-4, helium-3, deuterium and so on), can all be calculated using the theory.
    Though the quantum fluctuations were quite plausible scientists need a mathematical proof to support the claim that it came from nothing. Well this was given by Dongshan He and his buddies at the Wuhan Institute of Physics and Mathematics in China. These guys have come up with the first rigorous proof that the Big Bang could indeed have occurred spontaneously because of quantum fluctuations.
    We know about the Wheeler-DeWitt equation, so this proof is basically based on this equation and Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle. Now this allows a small empty space to come into existence probabilistically due to fluctuations, also known as the metastable false vacuum. Now we've got two possibilities. either this bubble space don't expand and disappears instantly or else the bubble can expand to a large enough size, then a universe is created.

    Also there is the initial singularity.
    I am in grade 11 so obviously I don't know everything about quantum physics but I know this much to understand that universe might've originated from nothing.
    Ganeshacarryrocks
    Lover, hunter, friend and enemy
    You will always be every one of these
    Nothing's fair in love and war.
  • Sonofason said:
    RS_master said:
    marke said:
    @RS_master

    marke The bible states that god created the universe. Science suggests there was no time before the big bang therefore, there was no time for god to create the universe. The bible suggests that god created the animals. Science suggests that eventually, there were molecules as complicated as DNA and then evolution took over.

    I answered this once but don't know where my response went so I'll answer it again.  It is not science which suggests life just somehow miraculously originated on earth without God.

    @marke
    There is actually scientific theories about how life was created. For example, this is one I believe:
     A few seconds after the big bang, the first atom formed: hydrogen. Then gradually, due to reactions, more atoms and molecules were formed such as helium, lithium, boron, carbon, nitrogen, oxygen... Gradually, the atoms became more complicated like tenessine needs 117 electrons, oganesson needs 118. With the atoms, not surprisingly, chemical compounds formed like water is one, CO2 is one. Eventually, DNA was formed. From there, evolution takes over
    There is no evidence that DNA has ever been manufactured outside of a living cell.
    Well artificial gene synthesis exists doesn't it? Then DNA can be printed too as far as I know.
    Lover, hunter, friend and enemy
    You will always be every one of these
    Nothing's fair in love and war.
  • @marke
    marke said:
    @RS_master
    Well actually the universe started as a particle itself. Quantum fluctuations are a part of quantum physics. 
    I don't happen to agree with your self-serving secular supposition.
    Is there any reason or logic for your disagreement with @RS_master? Or are you just blindly disagreeing due to a personal vendetta?
  • @xlJ_dolphin_473
    I feel it is that way.
    Lover, hunter, friend and enemy
    You will always be every one of these
    Nothing's fair in love and war.
  • @xlJ_dolphin_473
    I feel it is that way.
    Yes, probably... we'll see.
  • SandSand 234 Pts
  • @Sonofason
    Well I know what I spoke about there and I know that much about quantum mechanics as is required to understand that.

    So talking bout the creation part, at first there is the cosmic microwave background, (which is a kind of echo of the big bang). Then expansion of the cosmos takes place which when imagined backwards, hints at a Big Bang-type origin. Also the abundance of the primordial elements,(helium-4, helium-3, deuterium and so on), can all be calculated using the theory.
    Though the quantum fluctuations were quite plausible scientists need a mathematical proof to support the claim that it came from nothing. Well this was given by Dongshan He and his buddies at the Wuhan Institute of Physics and Mathematics in China. These guys have come up with the first rigorous proof that the Big Bang could indeed have occurred spontaneously because of quantum fluctuations.
    We know about the Wheeler-DeWitt equation, so this proof is basically based on this equation and Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle. Now this allows a small empty space to come into existence probabilistically due to fluctuations, also known as the metastable false vacuum. Now we've got two possibilities. either this bubble space don't expand and disappears instantly or else the bubble can expand to a large enough size, then a universe is created.

    Also there is the initial singularity.
    I am in grade 11 so obviously I don't know everything about quantum physics but I know this much to understand that universe might've originated from nothing.
    I'm just happy to see you are open minded enough to use the word "might've".  And really, that's my entire point.
    JGXdebatePRO
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2019 DebateIsland.com, All rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Awesome Debates
BestDealWins.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch