God and Science (Specifically Evolution and Big Bang) are Mutually Exclusive

>> "Not true, exhibit A being Bjorn Lomborg and his "Skeptical Environmentalist"- put on trial by the Danish Committee on Scientific Dishonesty, and then found to not be in the wrong in any way by the Danish Government's Investigation." Ah - a singular example. I'm sure there are more examples, but they are isolated incidents. The Church repeatedly put people on trial... There's quite a difference between isolated instances from what may or may not be a legitimate body (The DCoSD) and a large world religion (bordering on government at some times...). >> "I don't see your point. Isn't a new discovery in the world of science a fundamental reason to re-examine your outlook on the world and your understanding of it, including religion?" We keep coming back to this... Scientific discovery follows a precise method with verifiable results. Religious "method" does not. Thus, I am utterly and completely unimpressed when a religion claims to have attained the same results as science AFTER science has made these results known. >> ""If he is ***undetectable by science***, dubious at best to reason, ***and doesn't show up in verifiable test results***, why on earth would he not have given concrete evidence of his existence and try to lead us astray?" Those two highlighted sections, fine sir, are where you are wrong. You assume that God is not detectable by science and does not show up in tests- while the proof is moderate, this is not true." The only thing barring it from being true is the absence of "current" in front of science and verifiable. This nonsense about god being detectable by science is bogus, as I will demonstrate below. There is considerable evidence that prayer induces a placebo effect. The only time prayer improves mental health is when people KNOW they're being prayed for or are actually doing the praying themselves. There was an extensive article about a year ago in Popular Science about this. About 5 mins on google turned up the following links: (http://www.slate.com...) (http://www.brainonfire.net...). Both indicate that prayer has a placebo effect in health care. I would tend to think the absence of any sort of correlation here is evidence AGAINST god's existence. Although absence of proof is not proof of absence, absence of proof IS proof of reasonable doubt. >> "And if this *is* his original plan? I am not saying it is, but it is an option you must leave open to those torn between religion and science." That's a flawed argument too... were we in ANY other situation, the immediate response would also be "what if this IS his original plan?" Introducing our current state as the original plan makes no sense because it would hold that for us to exist, we must be in the original plan, thus, any existence (of us) is consistent with the original plan. >> "If this is true, then why do concepts of what is right vary so widely from place to place? Humans all have very very similar biology, and social contract stems from culture, of which religion is a very big part. If basic morality stems only from biology, why did Herodotus write of the Persian King Darius concluding that morals differed widely among people by asking a Greek and an Indian about whether they would eat or burn their dead, respectively? You cannot argue that religion plays no part in morality." Basic morality was developed long before religion. You can see basic moral behavior in the higher chimps. They understand mortality and concepts like assassination, and thus live in a primitive society where their actions are governed by what is best for the whole and what keeps them alive. Like the chimps, humans have been practicing morality much longer than religion. We don't kill other cavemen so other cavemen don't kill us. Not because god said "Thou shalt not kill." That's very basic social contract. Biological factors like the drive to guard females and offspring indicate a morality that is hard wired into our biology... Religion has simply taken what we already practice and attributed it to a deity. It's pretty simple. The reason it's different in different areas of the world is that religion has been around a LONG time and changed the social climate of these parts of the world. Religion plays a part in the current idea of morality, but not the fundamental construct of morality. ************************************ I must say this debate has been a pleasure to me as well. I think it could have benefited from a less tautological topic title, but I think we both just kind of ignored the topic and started debating religion vs. science. All in all, one of my more enjoyable debates.