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 largest online debate website globally where anyone can anonymously and easily debate online, casually or formally, while connecting with their friends and others. Users, regardless of debating skill level, can civilly debate just about anything online in a text-based online debate website that supports five easy-to-use and fun debating formats ranging from Casual, to Formalish, to Lincoln-Douglas Formal. In addition, people can improve their debating skills with the help of revolutionary artificial intelligence-powered technology on our debate website. DebateIsland is totally free and provides the best online debate experience of any debate website.


Communities




Can You Name Some Scientific Discoveries That Were Later Proven Wrong By Religion?

Debate Information


Umm...err...hmm
SkepticalOneOakTownAJohn_C_87Pepsiguy



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
22%
Margin

Details +




Post Argument Now Debate Details +

    Arguments


  • JulesKorngoldJulesKorngold 440 Pts   -  
    There is no evidence to suggest that religion has ever "proved" science wrong in the sense of providing evidence to refute a scientifically accepted theory or discovery.
    John_C_87Pepsiguyjack
  • PepsiguyPepsiguy 81 Pts   -  
    Argument Topic: False dichotomy

    @JulesKorngold

    Comparing science to religion is like comparing apples to oranges.

    To me this is the definition of science: Science is the field that collects knowledge by means of the scientific method.

    Libtards and militant atheists have redefined science to mean anything that supports their materialistic worldview.

    Science helps us find out more about our physical world. However, unlike religion/philosophy, science cannot answer the ultimate questions:

    * What is the meaning of life?
    * What is right and what is wrong?
    * What is beauty?
    * What happens after death?

    These are just a few examples
  • Luigi7255Luigi7255 606 Pts   -   edited January 3
    (deleted)
    "I will never change who I am just because you do not approve."
  • PepsiguyPepsiguy 81 Pts   -  
    Argument Topic: I've never posted this.

    @Luigi7255
    This isn't a repost
  • Luigi7255Luigi7255 606 Pts   -   edited January 3
    (deleted)
    "I will never change who I am just because you do not approve."
  • just_sayinjust_sayin 90 Pts   -   edited January 3
    Argument Topic: The Universe had a Beginning - Religion got it right, science got it wrong

    @Pepsiguy @JulesKorngold
    Religion isn't really about making scientific discoveries, its focus is spirituality.  However, there is a very famous instance that religion got right and scientists like Einstein got wrong. The popular scientific belief was for a steady state universe.  The discovery that stars are moving away from each other lead to the Big Bang Theory.  Science was catching up to what religion had been saying for many millennia.  This lead astrophysicist Robert Jastrow to say:

    “For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountain of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.”
    ― Robert Jastrow, The Enchanted Loom


    Pepsiguy
  • PepsiguyPepsiguy 81 Pts   -  
    Argument Topic: This

    @just_sayin this is the argument
  • JulesKorngoldJulesKorngold 440 Pts   -  
    Argument Topic: Not Quite

    @just_sayin
    The Universe had a Beginning - Religion got it right, science got it wrong
    That's oversimplifying the issue. There are more factors at play.  The theory of a steady-state Universe was based on the available data at the time.  When more data was available the theory was changed.  Religion didn't prove science wrong with any evidence.  It had a 50-50 chance of guessing right.

    There are several current pieces of evidence that contradict the steady-state model and support the Big Bang theory. Here are a few examples:

    1. The cosmic microwave background radiation: This radiation, which fills the universe, is thought to be the residual heat from the Big Bang. The steady-state model does not predict the existence of this radiation, and cannot explain its observed properties.

    2. The observed expansion of the universe: The steady-state model does not predict the observed expansion of the universe. In contrast, the Big Bang theory accurately predicts this expansion.

    3. The observed abundance of light elements: The Big Bang theory accurately predicts the observed abundance of light elements, such as hydrogen and helium, in the universe. The steady-state model does not.

    4. The observed large-scale structure of the universe: The Big Bang theory also accurately predicts the observed large-scale structure of the universe, including the distribution of galaxies and the presence of galaxy clusters and superclusters. The steady-state model does not.

    Religion simply says the Universe had a beginning because God created it.  
    OakTownA
  • NomenclatureNomenclature 805 Pts   -  
    @Pepsiguy @JulesKorngold
    Religion isn't really about making scientific discoveries, its focus is spirituality.  However, there is a very famous instance that religion got right and scientists like Einstein got wrong. 
    Scientists might have gotten it wrong, but religion most certainly didn't get it right. Not unless you're suggesting a divine grand wizard magicked up the universe from a soup can.
    OakTownA
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 4891 Pts   -   edited January 3
    @just_sayin

    You are confusing consistent truths with accidental truths. Yes, arbitrary religious claims can happen to coincide with truth sometimes - but as this is random and does not feature any corrective mechanism, you can never state with certainty that this is so. While in science mistakes are part of the process consistently leading to the truth. In fact, the example you cited shows exactly where science shines: no one had any reason to believe something an ancient book stated, until science proved that it happens to coincide with reality.

    This is like saying that a Powerball winner got his life choices right and a lawyer got his life choices wrong, because the Powerball winner ended up wealthier. What is missing here is the observation that the vast majority of lawyers are wealthy, while the overwhelming majority of Powerball players are broke. And that a lawyer can consistently accumulate more and more wealth, while a Powerball winner cannot expect to repeat his success again.

    In this context, making a claim about reality that happens to be true does not equate being right. You can arrive at the right conclusion with wrong reasoning, which makes you overall wrong. So no, religion did not get the question of finitness of time right: science did.
    jackOakTownA
  • just_sayinjust_sayin 90 Pts   -  
    Argument Topic: How does a universe come from nothing?

    @Nomenclature
    I don't know if you meant for the tone to sound mocking or not.  Its lost on me.  I have no problem with a universe being made by naturalistic patterns.  However, it might be a bit hypocritical to mock God creating the universe.  One of the most popular theories by Krauss is that the universe came from nothing   That's worse than magic.  At least when a magician pulls a rabbit from his hat, he has a hat to pull it from.

    Well, really Krauss means a virtual-particle is converted from energy that resides in a de sitter space. Huge problem with the theory though, as these type of particles have a measured life of existence before they are gone again, and that time is too short to allow for the fundamental forces to form that would be needed to cause inflation.  In other words, the big bang would not have gone "bang".

    All inflationary models are a bust also, because as the Borde–Guth–Vilenkin theorem proved any universe that has, on average, been expanding throughout its history cannot be infinite in the past but must have a past spacetime boundary.  That also applies to multiverse scenarios that are based on inflation.

    Hawking's and Penrose's "shuttlecock" theory also fails in that a universe could not eternally have existed infinitely small because the random flucations it would have would have resulted in the universe dying out an eternity ago.

    Sean Carroll and Jennifer Chen's mirror universe also fails because, other than the math not working, it has a beginning - they would argue its just a period of low entropy, but its a beginning.

    The fine tuning of the universe is a good reason to believe that an intelligent source created the universe. The cosmological constant must be fine-tuned to something like 1 part in 10 to 120th power.  That's a 1 followed by 120 zeros.  There aren't that many particles in the universe.  That's incredibly fined tuned.  Just a fraction more and the universe collapses in on itself, and a fraction less means no atoms would form.  That's just one of many forces that appear incredibly fined tuned. If everyone played the lottery and you won, you could call it chance, but what if you won the next day, and then again the next, and won again for the next trillion years? Would you still think it luck, or would you begin to believe that there must be some intelligence that is rigging the outcome?  Know the odds of a random universe that is capable of supporting any life, not just our kind of life, is much, much more unlikely than winning the lottery for a trillion years straight.  Claiming there is a  multiverse would only make it worse as any universe making machine would have to be even more finely tuned than our universe by a huge magnitude.

    Frankly, I just don't have enough faith to believe that our universe happened by chance.  

  • JulesKorngoldJulesKorngold 440 Pts   -  
    Argument Topic: Getting Back On Track

    To get back on track could we focus on other areas where religion proved science wrong?
  • NomenclatureNomenclature 805 Pts   -   edited January 4
    @just_sayin

    it might be a bit hypocritical to mock God creating the universe.  One of the most popular theories by Krauss is that the universe came from nothing   That's worse than magic.

    Well, number one, you are objectively wrong in your argument that religion was correct about the origins of the universe. Number two, you are objectively wrong that there was ever any scientific consensus that the universe had no beginning. Number three, you are objectively wrong that Lawrence Krauss believes the universe came from nothing (he and other scientists believe it inflated from a quantum particle into its present state). The issue is that you are either misrepresenting or misunderstanding the subject matter which you are trying to discuss.

    All inflationary models are a bust also, because as the Borde–Guth–Vilenkin theorem proved any universe that has, on average, been expanding throughout its history cannot be infinite in the past but must have a past spacetime boundary. 

    Please try to stop writing nonsense. Your statement here makes absolutely no sense and implies that you do not understand the subject matter. The Borde–Guth–Vilenkin theorem does not refute the idea of cosmological inflation. Alan Guth was one of the very first proponents of inflationary theory and he won the Nobel Prize for it in 2014.

    You are trying to bluff your way through subject matter which you clearly do not understand, and that isn't debate. 

    The fine tuning of the universe is a good reason to believe that an intelligent source created the universe.

    Again, no. Hawking explained decades ago in A Brief History Of Time that the anthropic principle adequately explains the ripe conditions of the universe, without the need for any omnipotent bearded creator. 

    The idea that God created the universe is an infinite regression fallacy. If God created the universe then who created God? And who created the thing that created God? There is no evidence whatsoever that anybody created the universe and unless that changes your theories are always going to be anti-science.

    Pepsiguy
  • just_sayinjust_sayin 90 Pts   -  
    @Nomenclature
    I don't think I am the one who misunderstands.  Guth did come up with the idea of inflation to explain the relative even heat distribution and the expanding universe, but he does not believe the universe is past eternal.  He believes our universe is a one off event.  He would agree with Vilenkin who said at Stephen Hawking's 70th birthday celebration “All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning.”

    And yes, the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem is a death knell to inflationary scenarios because the inflation can not be infinite into the past.  This busts multiversal inflationary models.  And suggests our own universe had a beginning.  You can read more about it from from the author's themselves: Inflationary spacetimes are not past-complete

    Did you read what I said about Krauss's book, A Universe from Nothing: Why there is Something Rather Than Nothing?  I am the one who mentioned his virtual-particle idea and how it doesn't work.    

    Let me quote Hawking for you:

    "Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the Universe exists, why we exist."

    Gibberish is gibberish, even when spoken by an astrophysicist. This is no more of an answer to the problem than me saying "because the law of gravity exists, it will create for the winning lotto ticket."  And most scientists agree with me and have mocked Hawking for the claim.

    Hawking's co-author on his "cosmic egg" (shuttlecock) theory is the one who did the math on how finely tuned the cosmological constant must be.  See him for yourself: Roger Penrose on Cosmic Fine-Tuning: “Incredible Precision in the Organization of the Initial Universe”

    There is no infinite regression fallacy.  God exists outside of space-time, therefore He would be eternal.  Only created things need a creator, necessary things do not.   See William Lane Craig bust this fallacy in his debate.

  • @JulesKorngold
    Now for something completly different....

    A cure for many cancers had once been prove by science to be terminal / lethal and it is religion that had proven science wrong. Holding only the idea religion is faith based many people volunteering for case studies in which they had placed their lives and not money on the table, resulting in the proving to the scientific community that the diagnosis of death for cancer patients was wrong.


    Pepsiguy
  • The Drug war is another case where religion is in the process of proving sceince wrong.


  • PepsiguyPepsiguy 81 Pts   -  
    Argument Topic: Wow. Just wow!

    @just_sayin

    my Notes in bold

    it might be a bit hypocritical to mock God creating the universe.  One of the most popular theories by Krauss is that the universe came from nothing   That's worse than magic.

    Well, number one, you are objectively wrong in your argument that religion was correct about the origins of the universe. Number two, you are objectively wrong that there was ever any scientific consensus that the universe had no beginning(Nearly every scientist agrees that the universe is expanding and most believe in the big bang). Number three, you are objectively wrong that Lawrence Krauss believes the universe came from nothing (he and other scientists believe it inflated from a quantum particle into its present state)(There is no evidence for Krauss's theory anyways, we have never witnessed these virtual particle quantum fluctuations outside of space). The issue is that you are either misrepresenting or misunderstanding the subject matter which you are trying to discuss.

    All inflationary models are a bust also, because as the Borde–Guth–Vilenkin theorem proved any universe that has, on average, been expanding throughout its history cannot be infinite in the past but must have a past spacetime boundary. 

    Please try to stop writing nonsense. Your statement here makes absolutely no sense and implies that you do not understand the subject matter. The Borde–Guth–Vilenkin theorem does not refute the idea of cosmological inflation. Alan Guth was one of the very first proponents of inflationary theory and he won the Nobel Prize for it in 2014.

    You are trying to bluff your way through subject matter which you clearly do not understand, and that isn't debate. 

    The fine tuning of the universe is a good reason to believe that an intelligent source created the universe.

    Again, no. Hawking explained decades ago in A Brief History Of Time that the anthropic principle adequately explains the ripe conditions of the universe, without the need for any omnipotent bearded creator. (If you assume that the universe began with mindless causes then those mindless causes have to be triggered by other mindless causes as mindless things cannot act on their own. An object at rest stays at rest until it's acted upon by another object - this is one of newtons laws of motion and one of Thomas Aquinas' arguments for God. this would lead to an infinite regression fallacy.)

    The idea that God created the universe is an infinite regression fallacy(No, everything you believe is an infinite regression fallacy, An infinite regress is an infinite series of entities governed by a recursive principle that determines how each entity in the series depends on or is produced by its predecessor, God is just one being who has existed forever). . If God created the universe then who created God?(Are you really this dumb? Even atheists have abandoned this argument, God is an uncreated being, there is no point in time where he did not exist. This the biblical view of God) And who created the thing that created God? There is no evidence(Yes there is, for one the universe began to exist, the second use your brain) whatsoever that anybody created the universe and unless that changes your theories are always going to be anti-science.

    You are the first atheist I've encountered online who actually uses the "Who created God?" argument. This one of the worst arguments against god in existence? I really do hate calling people "dumb"(As much as I oppose Leftism) online but your arguments are so bad that I have to point this out.
    http://https//www.youtube.com/watch?v=kKKIvmcO5LQ
  • NomenclatureNomenclature 805 Pts   -   edited January 7
    @Pepsiguy

    If you assume that the universe began with mindless causes then those mindless causes have to be triggered by other mindless causes as mindless things cannot act on their own. An object at rest stays at rest until it's acted upon by another object - this is one of newtons laws of motion and one of Thomas Aquinas' arguments for God. this would lead to an infinite regression fallacy.

    Cause is a condition of the universe and a by-product of time. There is nothing to suggest either cause and effect or time predate the inception of the universe, so your argument here is a fallacy. You're essentially assuming the conditions of the universe existed before the universe which bore those conditions into being.

    You're also misunderstanding Newton's law of inertia. Number one, an object remains at rest until acted upon by another force, which doesn't necessarily have to be an object. Number two, it also applies to objects in motion. An object in motion will remain in motion unless acted upon by another force. Either way, it has nothing to do with God and does not lead to an infinite regression fallacy. Not unless one again assumes that the laws of the present universe predate the universe which created them.

  • NomenclatureNomenclature 805 Pts   -  
    @Pepsiguy
    Are you really this dumb? Even atheists have abandoned this argument, God is an uncreated being, there is no point in time where he did not exist. 

    So God is a first cause and challenging that belief makes a person "dumb", while at the same time there can't be any other possible first causes, only an infinite regression?

    Are you even listening to yourself? This is ridiculous cognitive dissonance.

  • DeeDee 4958 Pts   -   edited January 7
    @Pepsiguy

    You are the first atheist I've encountered online who actually uses the "Who created God?"

    So before you even start you're guilty of a fallacious argument as in special pleading you set up criteria that applies to everything as in everything has a cause but exempt your god......seriously?

     argument. This one of the worst arguments against god in existence? 

    No it's not as it's asking you to justify your delusional b-ll cr-p but you cannot do so 

    really do hate calling people "dumb"(As much as I oppose Leftism) online but your arguments are so bad that I have to point this out.

    Ahhh you're back to calling people who disagree with you "leftists " yesterday it was Nazis.

    Regards calling people "dumb" you're the one who believes in a magical garden where a talking serpent tempted eve into biting into a magical apple which infuriated your imaginary god , this is not to even mention you atually believe  a water walking zombie ( product of a virgin birth) somehow communicates through his father (which is to himself ) to you?

    You're mentally unwell buddy get help 




    Nomenclature
  • dallased25dallased25 379 Pts   -  
    Pepsiguy said:
    @JulesKorngold

    Comparing science to religion is like comparing apples to oranges.

    To me this is the definition of science: Science is the field that collects knowledge by means of the scientific method.

    Libtards and militant atheists have redefined science to mean anything that supports their materialistic worldview.

    Science helps us find out more about our physical world. However, unlike religion/philosophy, science cannot answer the ultimate questions:

    * What is the meaning of life?
    * What is right and what is wrong?
    * What is beauty?
    * What happens after death?

    These are just a few examples

    @Pepsiguy
    Your definition of science is ok....but it's actually the study of the structure and behavior of the natural world through the scientific method. Using "knowledge" is just too broad since science for example does not collect all knowledge, just those that can be used to examine something in the natural world, so philosophy for example isn't something that is included in that. Scientists in general though do use in practice "scientific materialism", mainly because you cannot test anything supernatural, which means it's beyond the scope of science and thus cannot have the scientific method used or applied. I agree that science helps us find more about the physical, natural world and universe. 

    I do not agree though that religion answers "ultimate questions". All the questions you listed are questions that religion does provide answers for, but they aren't real answers they are stop gaps. What I mean is, for example, creationists will say "This biological structure is too complex, it must have been designed". That doesn't actually answer the question of how the structure came about, or provide any valuable insight, you just say "god did it", shrug your shoulders and walk away. It doesn't shed any light on when or how the structure came about, so the learning and questioning stops with "well, I guess god just did it that way for some reason we can't fathom". Same goes with the meaning of life, morality, beauty, afterlife....etc. You have holy books that all have different answers to these questions and not a single one of them can actually prove that those answers are true. You also get conflicting answers depending on who you talk to. For example for some christians, the meaning of life is "glorifying god", but what that actually means can be quite different depending upon who you talk to. For some that means simply living a good moral life, while for others it is spreading the gospel, while for others it's doing good works donating time to helping others. Christians also like to pretend that they have objective moral values, but they do not at all! You have hardcore Baptists churches that believe in no sex until marriage, that homosexuality is a moral sin, science is evil, etc...while you have Unitarian churches that accept science and homosexuality as a part of gods work. Every religion has a different answer also on what the afterlife will be like. 

    So religion doesn't actually provide answers to these questions, they provide unjustified opinions all based upon the same standard, which is faith. 
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
© 2021 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
Terms of Service

Get In Touch