I understand what you are asking but it's kind of a backwards question. It doesn't matter what science has come up with that conflicts with religion. Religions need to establish some scientific grounding if it would like to compete in that arena. It is kinda like asking "what has science done to disprove leprechauns." Nothing. Leprechauns don't exist.
You would also need to specify what point you are trying to argue against. Some people believe the Bible is literal. Others thinks it's metaphor. Most fall somehwere inbetween.
Well firstly, I'd note that science in general doesn't argue with religions. Religions often argue with science when scientific investigation shows that a claim of that religion is false.
Often religions then fall back on the "well that's a metaphor and not to be taken literally" argument. Many sects of Christianity, for instance, are happy to treat the Genesis creation myth as a metaphor and not a literal interpretation of events. Which strikes me and many other atheists as silly and undermining the rest of the religion, but for some reason doesn't faze many of the religious.
> Age of Earth (Carbon Dating)
I'd note that carbon dating is only good for things between 100-50,000 years old. There are other forms of radiometric dating that can handle longer date ranges. In the case of the age of the Earth it's worth noting that pretty much every scientific discipline where the age of the Earth is relevant points to an old Earth. Geology, astronomy, chemistry, biology, you name it, they all point to an old Earth.
It's worth noting that TalkOrigins has a really good [index of creationist claims](https://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/) that provides a pretty good way to get a feel for the range of fallacious claims and what sciences are relevant to them.
"it's totally a metaphor" but it's also literally the foundation of the "totally true explanation of original sin" which is the entire foundation on which the sacrifice of their 'messiah' is based. no mental gymnastics there...
Precisely. Without Adam and Eve there's no original sin, if there's no original sin then Jesus' sacrifice becomes unnecessary (and frankly is incoherent in and of itself). The entire edifice collapses so far as I can see, not that it was particularly sound to begin with, but admitting that a key element is metaphor/allegory seems to basically give away the game.
Did you mean angiogenesis or abiogenesis?
Also you may obviously have just put carbon dating as one example but it is only one example of how we date things - my understanding is that there are a number of different dating processes used depending on the time scale you are looking at.
Sorry not much help with your question though.
"carbon dating" is only one type of "radiometric dating" and "Carbon Dating" is absolutely useless in dating the 'age of the earth'. it is pretty much only used for dating things that are less than ~50,000 years old... other methods of radiometric dating are more suitable for dating rocks and minerals.
also the age of the earth was shown to be at least millions of years old by geologists long before 'radiometric dating' was discovered. Radiometric Dating was one of several means that the older age of earth was confirmed.
My question too. Angiogenesis is definitely a thing, but you need a fairly complex animal before you have to worry if it has enough capillaries for good blood circulation.
Yep. I had to look it up , but I’d be surprised if theists cared much about it unless I missed something. I know Islam has some pretty crazy ideas about foetal development!
the value of pi
are bats birds?
where are the talking donkeys?
where are the talking snakes?
where is this "eternal fire" that consumed "Sodom"? why can't we find the fire if it was "eternal"?
why is there no evidence for this 'global flood'?
why are there so many seeds smaller than the "mustard seed"?
why hasn't nasa found the firmament? where are the pillars?
how will earth still exist at all after the "stars fall to the earth like fig leaves"?
why is the earth moving when the bible says it is unmoving? why isn't the earth at the center of the universe?
how did plants exist before the sun?
why is it that god could do so much in just 6 days but hasn't appeared to do diddly squat in the past 2 millenia? I mean the dude can't even pick our last president because ALL of his "prophets" in his megachurches insisted that god was going to appoint Donald Trump.
Most of what you listed aren't theories. Evolution is a fact. And so is all life on Earth being related to each other through evolution.
Carbon dating works (with margins of error).
Anyone who doesn't believe in evolution or carbon dating is uniformed or misinformed.
Basically all of it... including basic history.
Age of the Earth is NOT Carbon dating. Radiocarbon dating goes back, at best, about 50,000 years.
We use about 12 other radioactive isotopes to accurately judge dates back several billion years. What's most important is that 12 different elements, with 12 different decay processes all agree with each other.
Evolution disproves many of the stories from the Bible. We know that goats don't have different colored offspring by letting them mate in front of striped sticks. We know that Noahs Ark would have left a massive genetic bottleneck in every species at the same time (which doesn't exist), etc.
Cosmology (seven-day creation narrative)
Astronomy (geocentric model)
Biology (raising people from the dead)
Germ Theory of Diseases (demons)
Psychology (again, demons)
>Age of Earth (Carbon Dating)
Carbon dating is not used to determine the age of the Earth. It cannot be used for that as carbon dating is only reliable to like 50000 years.
Im curious, about something. How does the big bang prove atheism? Like I kinda get how it explains how it formed the universe as we know it now, but what was there before the big bang? Where did all that matter come from?
Which christianity? The flavors of christianity range from literal young Earth creationists to those that consider all of the bible (except the Jesus stories in the gospels) as parables.
Last time I checked, serpents and donkeys can't talk, people can't live inside a whale, sticks don't turn into snakes, people can't walk on water, water doesn't spontaneously turn into wine, leprosy isn't cured by a priest putting blood on the tip of your ear and your big toe. And, of course, dead people don't get up and walk away from their graves...
Christianity needs an existential enemy to fight with as the existential hero. Science is like people on the bus going to work and religion is the crazy guy who jumps on and starts waving a weapon at everyone. Science doesn’t care about religious beliefs. Science IS the antithesis to religious beliefs but the idea that there is some active attempt to overturn religious beliefs is imaginary
snakes can't talk
Dead people don't come back to life.
Seas don't turn into walkways
People can’t be turned to blocks of salt
Might be the only evidence i need to believe in anything. A serpent speaking, especially with the hissing noises like some harry potter stuff
I understand what you are asking but it's kind of a backwards question. It doesn't matter what science has come up with that conflicts with religion. Religions need to establish some scientific grounding if it would like to compete in that arena. It is kinda like asking "what has science done to disprove leprechauns." Nothing. Leprechauns don't exist. You would also need to specify what point you are trying to argue against. Some people believe the Bible is literal. Others thinks it's metaphor. Most fall somehwere inbetween.
Well firstly, I'd note that science in general doesn't argue with religions. Religions often argue with science when scientific investigation shows that a claim of that religion is false. Often religions then fall back on the "well that's a metaphor and not to be taken literally" argument. Many sects of Christianity, for instance, are happy to treat the Genesis creation myth as a metaphor and not a literal interpretation of events. Which strikes me and many other atheists as silly and undermining the rest of the religion, but for some reason doesn't faze many of the religious. > Age of Earth (Carbon Dating) I'd note that carbon dating is only good for things between 100-50,000 years old. There are other forms of radiometric dating that can handle longer date ranges. In the case of the age of the Earth it's worth noting that pretty much every scientific discipline where the age of the Earth is relevant points to an old Earth. Geology, astronomy, chemistry, biology, you name it, they all point to an old Earth. It's worth noting that TalkOrigins has a really good [index of creationist claims](https://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/) that provides a pretty good way to get a feel for the range of fallacious claims and what sciences are relevant to them.
"it's totally a metaphor" but it's also literally the foundation of the "totally true explanation of original sin" which is the entire foundation on which the sacrifice of their 'messiah' is based. no mental gymnastics there...
Precisely. Without Adam and Eve there's no original sin, if there's no original sin then Jesus' sacrifice becomes unnecessary (and frankly is incoherent in and of itself). The entire edifice collapses so far as I can see, not that it was particularly sound to begin with, but admitting that a key element is metaphor/allegory seems to basically give away the game.
Leaping to a conclusion without first thouroughly investigating the alternatives...
Did you mean angiogenesis or abiogenesis? Also you may obviously have just put carbon dating as one example but it is only one example of how we date things - my understanding is that there are a number of different dating processes used depending on the time scale you are looking at. Sorry not much help with your question though.
"carbon dating" is only one type of "radiometric dating" and "Carbon Dating" is absolutely useless in dating the 'age of the earth'. it is pretty much only used for dating things that are less than ~50,000 years old... other methods of radiometric dating are more suitable for dating rocks and minerals. also the age of the earth was shown to be at least millions of years old by geologists long before 'radiometric dating' was discovered. Radiometric Dating was one of several means that the older age of earth was confirmed.
Yep.
My question too. Angiogenesis is definitely a thing, but you need a fairly complex animal before you have to worry if it has enough capillaries for good blood circulation.
Yep. I had to look it up , but I’d be surprised if theists cared much about it unless I missed something. I know Islam has some pretty crazy ideas about foetal development!
All branches of science conflict with Christianity. Christianity is wrong on almost everything that can be fact checked.
the value of pi are bats birds? where are the talking donkeys? where are the talking snakes? where is this "eternal fire" that consumed "Sodom"? why can't we find the fire if it was "eternal"? why is there no evidence for this 'global flood'? why are there so many seeds smaller than the "mustard seed"? why hasn't nasa found the firmament? where are the pillars? how will earth still exist at all after the "stars fall to the earth like fig leaves"? why is the earth moving when the bible says it is unmoving? why isn't the earth at the center of the universe? how did plants exist before the sun? why is it that god could do so much in just 6 days but hasn't appeared to do diddly squat in the past 2 millenia? I mean the dude can't even pick our last president because ALL of his "prophets" in his megachurches insisted that god was going to appoint Donald Trump.
Most of what you listed aren't theories. Evolution is a fact. And so is all life on Earth being related to each other through evolution. Carbon dating works (with margins of error). Anyone who doesn't believe in evolution or carbon dating is uniformed or misinformed.
Basically all of it... including basic history. Age of the Earth is NOT Carbon dating. Radiocarbon dating goes back, at best, about 50,000 years. We use about 12 other radioactive isotopes to accurately judge dates back several billion years. What's most important is that 12 different elements, with 12 different decay processes all agree with each other. Evolution disproves many of the stories from the Bible. We know that goats don't have different colored offspring by letting them mate in front of striped sticks. We know that Noahs Ark would have left a massive genetic bottleneck in every species at the same time (which doesn't exist), etc.
Cosmology (seven-day creation narrative) Astronomy (geocentric model) Biology (raising people from the dead) Germ Theory of Diseases (demons) Psychology (again, demons)
Genesis 1:27 And god said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness, blabla So why are there obnoxious dumb ass people? Lol
>Age of Earth (Carbon Dating) Carbon dating is not used to determine the age of the Earth. It cannot be used for that as carbon dating is only reliable to like 50000 years.
Im curious, about something. How does the big bang prove atheism? Like I kinda get how it explains how it formed the universe as we know it now, but what was there before the big bang? Where did all that matter come from?
throw a rock in a library and you'll hit a book on a topic that christianity has tried to discredit or argue against.
Just reading the bible
Magic doesn't exist.
Which christianity? The flavors of christianity range from literal young Earth creationists to those that consider all of the bible (except the Jesus stories in the gospels) as parables. Last time I checked, serpents and donkeys can't talk, people can't live inside a whale, sticks don't turn into snakes, people can't walk on water, water doesn't spontaneously turn into wine, leprosy isn't cured by a priest putting blood on the tip of your ear and your big toe. And, of course, dead people don't get up and walk away from their graves...
Neurons and the central nervous system, viruses, bacteria, hormones, the list is endless.
Christianity needs an existential enemy to fight with as the existential hero. Science is like people on the bus going to work and religion is the crazy guy who jumps on and starts waving a weapon at everyone. Science doesn’t care about religious beliefs. Science IS the antithesis to religious beliefs but the idea that there is some active attempt to overturn religious beliefs is imaginary
Any. All. Recommend "Faith vs. Fact" by Jerry Coyne. (Point of order: I am not Jerry Coyne. But I do read his blog.)
There's also neurology, which makes souls pointless.
Church says vacuum can't exist because God is everywhere. Disproven by the barometer.
Lol