Does the fact that religious people try to argue against science prove that...

[AtheistJohn]

...religion isn't strong at all?
"The fallacy in your question is the assumption that all "religious people" are anti-science. This isn't true at all. "

I didn't say "all", I said that if religious people do argue against science, then they are getting nowhere.

 

[RhesusPlus]

They see the world through a lens, like when you get drunk and the not so attractive woman gets prettier and prettier.

 

[IyvnBlog]

I wouldn't say it proves it but it does seem to indicate so.

It's sort of what you come to expect when your talking to people that believe a 2000 year old book. Science changes, science adapts, religion doesn't seem to

 

[Jeffrey]

That's just one of many proofs. Religious people have only the bad choices of trying to lamely refute science or ignore it when science proves the Bible is wrong. Someone who claims science supports the Bible is so wrong. I could see the conflict between science and the Bible when I was a child. Anyone who claims science supports the Bible hasn't read any real science.

 

[auntjemimaoJama]

Religion is strong u can't argue with billion gullible christians

 

[wristshot]

Is the fact that atheist argue against creation proof that science isn't strong at all?

 

[Lora]

Well, most Christians think that since Atheists can't give them irrefutable evidence on evolution, that makes their koo-koo creation story win by default.

 

[CC]

They can argue all they want. Arguments are not evidence. If and when they present evidence against any scientific theory, then I will listen.

 

[thundercatt9]

Christians don't hate science (and I've been around a ton of them), this is only a societal conception. Science actually SUPPORTS the bible in many different ways, but christians and non-christians alike will choose to believe what they want to believe. Like previous posters have mentioned, many scientists are Christians and believe that the beliefs of science and God interact harmoniously.

 

[NinjaPenguin]

Who argues against science?!

 

[Jackal]

You are wrong! Religious people see Science as a Gift from God to better understand and explore the wonders of His Creation.

 

[JimTheBaptist]

I don't argue against science

I argue against evolution

Please don't confuse the two

 

[GrignardReagent]

You only have to look at the lies that some swallow and regurgitate about big bangs and evolution.

These responses are copied from another question. I quote:

1) The dating methods used to support evolution ages have been proven wrong, but are still used because they give the desired ages.

1) Every "transitional" fossil has been proven to be a lie, or an honest mistake, later corrected.

(My comment - Two lies in two sentences)

1) The geological columns do not always have the right fossils in the right layers.

(My comment - I don't know about this but it is probably false)

1) There are many times were items, trees, or fossils, go across many layers, with sign that they had been moved.

(My comment - I'm not sure what he means here, If it's the tree stumps in more than one sedimentary layer, that was explained in the 19th century before Darwin published)

1) Carbon-14 is still increasing, proving that the Earth is not that old. It is less then 30,000 old.

(My comment - Carbon 14 is not still increasing and it isn't used to date old fossils in any case)

2) I believe that the story of creation in The BIBLE is truth.

(My comment - The evidence is against that)

The following answer is more reasonable but still wrong -

You use the proper term "believe in" as evolution is not a fact. It is a theory as to the origins of species.

(My comment - it is not a theory, this is repetition of a common mistake, however he is correct about it being about the origin of species)

Evolution (the changing of one species into another) has never been observed in nature, reproduced in the lab nor proved factual

(My comment - that is a direct lie, though the writer probably does not know it)
.
I accept evolution for what it is: a fanciful theory.

(My comment - Since speciation or near speciation has been observed over historical and recent time, evolution is not a theory)

More - with this EDIT

Evolutionists believe:

From the Book of Darwin Ch 1;
v.1 In the beginning there was nothing
Then some nothings got together and became something
v.2 Then something exploded ( the “big bang” )
Millions of years passed by.
As the gaseous remains of the “big bang” spread out
Some of it became galaxies, stars, and planets
v.3 Millions of years passed by.
On the planets it rained and it rained
v.4 Millions of years passed by.
Some rocks dissolved into puddles,
And this became the primordial soup
v.5 Millions of years passed by.
Something in the soup decided to be life
v.6 Millions of years passed by.
This “life” mutated and mutated and
v.7 Millions of years passed by.
this is where ALL life comes from!

This list of nonsense is supposed to be about biological evolution.

The weakness of their position is shown by the list of lies they use.

 

[dena]

The fallacy in your question is the assumption that all "religious people" are anti-science. This isn't true at all.

The two are not mutually exclusive. There are scientist who are people of faith and there are atheists that do not believe in evolution.

Furthermore, there are many religions that don't take a stand one way or the other on evolution or any other scientific concept.

Even in the Christian religions, there are more denominations that are pro-science than "anti-science."

I know this throws a wrench into your preconceived notions but religion and science are not inherently opposite and the belief in one does not automatically disqualify a belief in the other. Nor does the belief in one "prove" that the other is somehow deficient.

Dena

 

[Marvelous]

No! Standing up to something perceived as not correct by someone takes strength!

By the way, Christians are not categorically against all science. Only when scientists say something in direct contradiction to the Bible do Christians have valid ground for disagreeing.

 

[HALl90001]

Not really, us atheist argue religion too. But the fact that they have absolutely no evidence besides ancient writings makes it weak

 

[Sm`Rm`mm]

Does the fact that atheism was only heard of in the Greek empire prove that theism is stronger then atheism?