The Top 10 Ultimate Rivalries list listed the biggest and greatest rivalries ever, and now this list will introduce even more ultimate rivalries: some of which almost made the cut for the Top 10, and some of which I came up with only after the first list had been finished. Don’t underestimate these new rivalries, though; each of them still keeps the undying spirit of timeless conflict and ruthless confrontation of the first list’s rivalries.
This is a rivalry that has been ongoing since the dawn of man and while we may seem to be winning – there are two sides to the story. Rather than describing the rivalry – I have listed a few victories for nature and man – you be the judge of who is leading this battle.
Victories For Man
Cured diseases
Enormous cities – we conquered the land
Near absolute dominance over animals (we can defend or cure ourselves from even the most venomous creatures)
Victories For Nature
Incurable Diseases
Inhospitable regions (including the oceans which we have yet to conquer despite their vast size)
Extreme weather
For all of our efforts to suppress nature when it suits us, she manages to find a way to fight back. For every step forward, we appear to take a step back. Who the final victor will be – none of us know, but it is certainly interesting to speculate.
No other internet meme has triggered a more brutal conflict than the one pitting these two ruthless enemies against each other: the infamous pirates versus the legendary ninjas. These two adversaries have found themselves in natural antagonism along the recurrent battlefields of cyberspace. The origins of this bitter feud can be traced to a simple but intriguing question: “Who would win in a fight: a pirate, or a ninja?” Since then, both sides have developed a bitter hate for each other, which has soon escalated into an all-out war for the Supreme Crown of Awesome.
Although their opposition doesn’t seem evident at first glance, it’s their intrinsic qualities which make them natural enemies. The aggressive, no-holds-barred, outspoken corsair, wielding devastating weapons of high-seas warfare; against the cold, calculating, and devious techniques of the stealthy Japanese assassin. The radically dissimilar styles and philosophies of war make them admirable opponents, especially when it comes to defending their superiority over the other in countless chat rooms and message boards The internet still runs red with blood of both gunpowder-pelted shinobi corpses and shuriken-ridden buccaneer carcasses; and yet there seems to be no end in sight for what is probably the coolest war the world has ever seen.
When it comes to once-in-a-lifetime, legendary sporting clashes, look no further than the strife of the two great heavyweight champions Cassius Clay (a.k.a. Muhammad Ali), and Joe “Smokin’ Joe” Frazier, arguably the greatest rivalry in boxing history. It’s no fluke that their first boxing match was called “The Fight of the Century”. The then-undefeated champions went head-to-head for the first time in 1971, in an eagerly awaited bout sure to make history. And it seems to have lived up to all the hype. Pitting Frazier’s punching power against Ali’s speed and knack, the truly exciting match displayed the best the boxing world could offer; but only one could be declared champion. Although Ali proved his worth during the early rounds, Frazier held his own and by the later rounds had Ali against the ropes. After a definitive hook in the 15th round which crushed Ali’s jaw, Frazier was unanimously declared winner, marking Ali’s first-ever professional loss.
After the legendary bout, the rivalry between the two was kept alive both in and out of the ring. Verbal attacks between the two were common, and certainly fuelled a hate for each other that would flesh out once the gloves were on. After a second mostly unremarkable match which Ali won, the two boxers faced each other for the last time in 1975 in the “Thrilla in Manila” match. Their final fight was a brutal and relentless one, and after 14 fierce rounds, Frazier’s trainer decided to end the bout, just as Ali was pleading for the same. Ali was declared the winner of the match (and fainted seconds after). The Ali-Frazier era has since been considered a golden era of boxing, and the two rivals have earned their rightful place in sporting history.
Yet another item that could easily span a list of its own. If there’s a place nowadays that symbolizes the timeless rivalry between two opposing sides, it ought to be in sports. In every sport, in any given region of the world, you’ll probably find a bitter rivalry between two sports teams, an endless grudge between two (and sometimes three) sports teams who year after year face each other in tournaments and exhibition matches to prove “once and for all”, again and again, who the best team is.
Every city, every region has its own classic team rivalry. The grudges can be local, between cities, between countries, between entire continents, you name it. Wherever you live, you’re probably familiar with a certain intense clash between two rival teams, a rivalry that feels as old and natural as time itself, and that perhaps you feel as being part of. Football, Baseball, Rugby, Basketball, American Football, Cricket, Ping-Pong, whatever; every sport has many of these ultimate rivalries. There’s only one way to resolve these conflicts, though: cheer them on with all your heart as they go out to the field and duke it out.
Since ancient times, politics has been an undeniable driving element of human history. And global contemporary politics has experienced an evolution towards two opposing sides: the Right and the Left. Although the dynamics of these two factions throughout history have been anything but simplistic and dualistic, there are nonetheless discernible ideologies within the so-called “Political Spectrum”. Originally referring to seating arrangements in the French parliament of the 18th century, these two terms evolved to represent particular ideologies which would become very important in the following centuries. The “Right Wing” roughly represents conservative and traditional values, as well as an inclination for Capitalism, individualism, and Nationalism. The “Left Wing” refers for the most part to liberal, socially progressive and equalitarian values of government, with a penchant for communitarian and socialist ideas. As with anything, all these political and socioeconomic terms aren’t exclusive to either side, and in fact have been present in either side in one way or another throughout history.
Some people may be most familiar with this opposition of parties in time of elections, when “Red” parties face off against “Blue” parties. But within elected governments themselves, this clash between Right and Left is common. And of course, there is also a conflict of Right and Left within dictatorships, which have been both of “Right” and “Left” nature. Throughout history, in fact, we have seen the best and the worst of both ends. Repressive governments can be authoritarian and Fascist, that is, of an “Extreme Right” nature; others can do away with democracy altogether and embrace Communist ideals, known as “Extreme Left” governments. But for the most part, both political tendencies have seen both times of prosperity and times of crisis, as they have been embraced by countries from all over the world.
The highest representatives of natural rivalry in the Animal Kingdom of cartoons, the peculiar dynamics of the Coyote (Carnivorus desperatus) and its prey, the Road Runner (Supersonicus marvelous) are a sight to behold along their natural habitat of the southwest American desert. Despite persistent efforts to catch the remarkably fast Road Runner with bizarre ACME devices and convoluted trap contraptions, the self-proclaimed “super-genius” Wile E. Coyote has been, as of today, completely unable to outwit its succulent feathered prey.
But what is the real culprit of the Coyote’s recurrent failure? An irrational zeal to catch its prey stunted by a permanent state of starvation? An endless line of faulty ACME Corporation products overlooked by the competent quality control departments? Or the fact that the Road Runner seems to be perfectly impervious to any and all laws of gravity, causality, and probability? Whatever the reason, one cannot help but praise the unwavering determination of the wild Coyote to catch its formidable rival the Road Runner, even if we know he might never be able to.
This was the one notable omission of the Top 10, and as such requires some explanation. In 1996 and 1997, world chess champion Garry Kasparov, considered by some to be the greatest chess player of all time, was pitted against Deep Blue, a chess-playing computer developed by IBM. Garry Kasparov had already defeated its predecessor, Deep Thought, in 1989. But this upgraded version proved a much more worthy opponent. In the first set of six games, Kasparov won, but only after a win from each, two draw games (by agreement), and an offer from him to draw again on the fifth game.
The next year, a rematch was set, and turned out with similar results: a win from each for the first two games, three consecutive draws, and finally a victory for Deep Blue. Kasparov, and the world, were dumbfounded, as it was the first time a machine had beat a world champion in a match. Although Kasparov wanted a rematch, IBM retired Deep Blue before that could happen. But the importance of this result is definitely beyond that of chess. Deep Blue’s victory marked a definitive victory of the machine over its creator, man. Does it mean that the creation has already become superior to its creator? What will happen when computers become more proficient than humans in more and more activities? Will humans become obsolete? The answers aren’t clear, but Deep Blue certainly gave us a hint of what will become of the struggle of Man vs. Machine.
The all-important struggle of Good vs. Evil makes a familiar appearance in the form of classic Hero vs. Villain rivalries in fiction. The quintessential Hero, representing all that is good and noble, has to face a vile nemesis intent on making evil and wretchedness reign supreme. And thus, the biggest and most famous clashes in fiction come to be. The Hero of the story must defeat the Villain in order to re-establish peace and justice in the world, and sets on to a great adventure to face all the obstacles that the Villain will place in his or her path. The final battle between the Hero and the Villain is inevitable, and it is at that moment when we realize how different, and sometimes how very alike, the Hero and the Villain really are. Maybe the Hero defeats the Villain once and for all, or maybe the Villain will live to see another day, and thus the conflict between the two will become eternal and legendary.
The examples in fiction are countless and well-known. Modern audiences will probably be more familiar with the likes of Darth Vader vs. Luke Skywalker, Superman vs. Lex Luthor, Batman vs. The Joker, Harry Potter vs. Lord Voldemort, etc. These and many other examples of the Hero/Villain rivalry are diverse and quite emblematic. In fact, you should probably stay tuned for a fictional rivalry list in the near future…
This rivalry could also be considered a “Hero vs. Villain” sort of affair, but perhaps it’s a bit more complex than that. The Old Testament tells the story of the conflict between the Israelites and the Philistines. Goliath, the humongous champion warrior, is constantly taunting the Israelites to send out their champion warrior so he can face him and decide the outcome of the war in a single battle. But no one dares to confront the behemoth that is Goliath. Young David, future king of Israel, hears Goliath’s words and claims he is not afraid of him, accepting to battle him with just a sling and five stones. The armoured, shield-bearing Goliath towering way above David laughs at him, but David simply says that he’s got God by his side, and with that he strikes down Goliath with a single stone’s throw to the head.
Now, this tale could simply be about how the people of Israel always have God by their side; or, it could tell of an elementary struggle of Good vs. Evil, and how Good will surely win in the end. But, it could also represent the ways in which a strong faith in God can beat anything; or how appearances can be deceiving; or how size doesn’t matter; or even the eternal struggle of the underdog against seemingly insurmountable odds. This classic story can mean many different things to different people; as such, it has become an intrinsic aspect of our modern culture, and whether you’re religious or not, it may teach us a lesson about life if we just pay attention.
In the great quest for understanding the nature of our world, Science and Religion have clashed in multiple occasions over which of them holds the real truths to the biggest questions of the universe. In fact, both usually display contradicting views concerning subjects such as the origin of the universe, the nature of humanity, and the meaning of life. Although each holds entirely opposing values, such as the reliance on faith vs. the reliance on reason and the scientific method, the urge of each to answer similar and overlapping inquiries has been cause for much confusion and hatred. Creationism vs. Evolution, for example, is arguably the clearest representative of the modern clash between religion and science. Philosophers, both classic and modern, have studied the problem of where religion should stop and science should start, and viceversa.
What is God? What is the soul? What is life? What is the origin of the universe? What is the nature of humanity? Why are we here? These are all questions that have been tackled by both religions and sciences, with obviously differing results. So it would seem that science is doomed to be in unassailable conflict with religion; but there are also those (St. Thomas Aquinas, for example) who have tried to reconcile the two to reach a mutual understanding in order to reach the ultimate truths with both. Hopefully, one day religion and science will finally reach the same place both have been looking for all along, and celebrate together…






























Fantastic list.
This is the earliest comment I’ve ever made. How exciting.
Pyrratus: wow – you must be a bloody fast reader!
nice list ninjas for the win
I really wanted put Mccain as “right” he is more liberal
I meant wouldn’t, it’s 4 in the morning here…a little tired, nice list thought, I enjoyed it
Can this be a new battleground for a religion vs science debate? lol
Great list btw
Finally, science vs religion… The biggest omission in the previous list… How about 50 cent vs every other rapper on the planet?
East side vs West side?
West Coast FTW! East Coast SUCKS!!!
Just a note on David and Goliath, if I remember correctly, David was actually fitted with armour and a sword when he faced Goliath.
He then charged towards Goliath and slung his stone. The stone struck Goliath down, and David proceeded to decapitate him. Not bad for the lil shepherd boy, but then again he’d had some practice taking on bears & lions that would run off with one of his sheep.
by the way, great list (sorry for the triple post). Who’s the author?
Great list – 2nd best to JF`s death lists.
Well done K
the author is at the top of each list by the published date
awesome, and hilarious, list.
on a side note, McCain does look like he’s gonna ***** himself in that photo doesn’t he?
Yet another great list.
Love it
Got to love lists like this. Though it is 3:20-something in the a.m and I don’t have a functioning braincell, I have to congratulate Kreature on this fine piece of work!
I know I’ll have more to say when I’m actually awake.
Ehh…
you forgot me vs. ex-wife. Maybe next time…
I want that last picture as a wallpaper
I see you’ve learned your lesson Jamie. Didn’t say Penis this time. And in my honest opinion, nature will, by far, win that rivalry. It was here long before us, obviously, and will be here long after we are gone, unless of course we destroy the planet which is always a possibility. And by possibility I mean probability. I just confused myself.
Wheres Russia Vs US ???
#16. 68PlexiMarshall: yeah, me and wife always had a good fight- particularly above 1 am followed by local earthquake in my bed. Awesome.
Science doesn’t have a view on the meaning of life and is often an unwilling opponent.
oh so i guess that the big bang and evolution have nothing to do with life. Oh ok
Also, who said there was a meaning of life? Maybe we’re all just useless lifeforms that have no meaning in life other to survive and reproduce.
21. Kazorek : Many philosophers have theories on it, the difference being their views on it are based on logic and reasoning – like some theists like Aquinas – whereas most theists just take their meaning straight from the Bible etc. To say that science has no answers as to the meaning of life is a glaring fallacy and a blatant lie.
22. Angry onliner : Well you know that a Creationist will just come back with “Well, if they’re not true they don’t”, why start that stupid debate here? We have a whole bloody topic on it elsewhere…
23. Angry onliner : Well then there’s still a meaning isn’t there? Maybe articulate your arguments a bit better next time.
I really hope this list doesn’t become another Atheist vs believers battleground. It got pretty messy the last time.
9. Stizzy: David was fitted with armour and a sword and then he said he couldn’t move so he removed all the armour and weapons and faced Goliath in ordinary clothes, a sling shot and some rocks.
Great list. Love this site.
The team a vs. team b and the hero vs. villain are kinda lame on this list. I get what you are trying to do, because every city/country would argue their rivalry is greater. Having said that though you really can’t just put two teams on a list of ultimate rivalries because thats like saying a rivalry is the number 7 ultimate rivalry. Yeah their are lots of rivalries between many sporting teams, countries, cities, heroes and villains, but you should choose the best. The rivalries no one has any doubt about. Oh yeah and btw Bugs Bunny vs. Elmer Fudd way bigger then Coyote and Road Runner.
What about Red vs Blue?
Halo and machinma should know what I’m talkinga bout here
Ninjas FTW.
A ninja can break a pirate’s cutlass with his heel. FACT.
ninjas will beat pirates. o yea and u forgot to put in that list indians vs. cowboys thats the all time rivalry
28 nolod1207 – “Bugs Bunny vs. Elmer Fudd way bigger then Coyote and Road Runner.”
When you think about it, Elmer is rubbish. He has a gun, and yet cannot defeat a smartmouthed, cocky rabbit. Yet an idiotic coyote and a roadrunner never fail to entertain. Yeah. ^W^
Man vs nature? That´s easy. Nature will still be there when man is gone and forgotten. In the history of life on earth, the rule of mankind will be just a glimpse of an eye…
galaxy girl: ah yes that’s it
he knocked him down with the stones, then used Goliaths own sword to cut off his head. Owned.
As for the question of science providing a “meaning of life”, I wonder if chemical processes have the means to produce meaning? Without interpretation, can information have meaning? And without an absolute, is any interpretation reliable? This isn’t a question of the order in the universe as we currently see it, but how that order arose in the first place.
And since science is based on observational and repeatable events, can it truly define the origins of life or the universe as neither are observable or repeatable? And before science can even determine a meaning for existence, can it determine an origin for meaning itself?
If nothing can produce meaning then surely meaning is really nothing and nothing means anything. To put it simply, what’s the point of anything? There is no point, because there are no points.
Tea vs Coffee. Go coffee!
in all the rivalries you have, one side gets one up on the other side and then vice versa. . . but when has religion gotten one up on science? I mean really.. religion just answers things that science hasn’t explained properly but then when science advances and can explain the phenomenon properly religion can’t compete. has religion reproved that the earth is the centre of the universe since we figured out it wasn’t?it cant.
All that religion can do is try and stay ahead of science like holding on to things that we haven’t already discovered (what was there before the big bang? why are certain molecules alive and others not?). eventually its ground will get smaller and smaller until science reaches its limit.(for example we may well do experiments in the future that show complex organic molecules forming and then reaching the point where they start building replicas of themselves but we may never be able to establish anything as fact before the big bang.)
religion is hardly rivaling science. it just babysits our curiosity until science comes home.
as for creationism, lets not bother trying to educate the people that support it. lets all just take the ***** out of them. . . we’ll all start changing all the wiki sites, start publishing books, preaching to anyone that will listen that gravity moves objects up!whats our proof? – we believe it!its in a book!must be true. who cares if the evidence contradicts us.what evidence could possibly contradict us?
and science will also end the ninja vs pirate debate with the ninja-pirate hybrid-u won’t even see it drink the rum but the rum will be all gone. . .
33. Stizzy: Very interesting! I need to print out your post and think about it over a glass of red wine tonight.
I think Johnf, you’re confusing evidence with interpretation. Creationism and evolution use the same evidence and start from different presuppositions and world views.
e.g Evidence: millions of animal and plant remains buried beneath layers and layers of rock.
Evoluion and Uniformitarianism: layers laid down gradually through unchanging natural processes over millions of years, showing the upward evolution of organisms.
Creationism: layers laid down rapidly during a global flood over a period of a year, with organisms ordered according to their proximity to sea levels and / or randomly sorted due to intense tidal motions.
Religion doesn’t rival science because they aren’t seeking the same answers, (at least they shouldn’t be).
Science indevours to explain how.
Religion usually tries to explain why.
When religion tries to answer scientific questions, it’s stepping outside its boundary.
When science tries to answer philosophical and spiritual questions, it’s stepping outside its boundary.
The only way scientists could do an experiment to show complex molecules forming and replicating themselves is if they guide the process or pre-program it, and that doesn’t prove anything except “intelligence required”.
How about Tom and Jerry?
The answer to the question “What is the meaning of Life?” is simple. Its 42. The trick is to find out what the real question is…
Why is the rum always gone?
32. Sch or sch : Not if man destroys nature before we leave. If you believe everything the media tells you it’s an inevitability, in that case nature is – I would’ve said quite obviously, but to some it evidently hasn’t been – screwed. Does nature still win then? Not to mention that no species has ever had to control over nature mankind has secured, so why does everyone just assume that history is going to repeat itself?
33. Stizzy : I’m pretty sure you should read the philosophy list :
http://listverse.com/miscellaneous/top-10-schools-of-philosophy/
But if we aren’t experiencing and interpreting right now, what are we doing? So I think your suggestion of no meaning is a bit specious, but it’s a very ambiguous and insanely interesting field.
35. johnf : Can I ask – as politely as possible – do you walk around all day with your eyes closed? Or only when you walk past a cruxifix or a church? What do you mean when has religion gotten one up on science? Ever heard of the Spanish Inquisition? How about the Holy Roman Empire? The Pope? The Vatican? All of these things are examples of what religion has that science is still lacking, followers, followers from all walks of life, with different levels of natural intelligence, from different etnic backgrounds etc need I continue? So unless you’re going to argue intelligently don’t insult others’ beliefs
Mark, yeah I read that list before hehe “But if we aren’t experiencing and interpreting right now, what are we doing? So I think your suggestion of no meaning is a bit specious, but it’s a very ambiguous and insanely interesting field.”
That’s exactly my point. For someone to say that random chemical processes can produce what we have now is basically to say that nothing has meaning and there is no point to anything. Therefore, how do you know you’re experiencing and interpreting? You only know because an intelligence or authority has told you you have, and because you yourself have that intelligence.
Obviously we are experiencing and interpreting, and therefore for anything to make sense or have meaning, there must be an intelligence behind it.
And I know some will say “prove this intelligence exists”, well, if this intelligence truly is beyond time and space, all knowing and all powerful, and a human being (equivalent to a spec of insignificant dust on a bigger ball of dust in an ambiguous part of the universe) could prove this intelligence exists through any natural means, He wouldn’t be very all knowing or all powerful because this “proof” would be mightier than He.
How bout Cripz and bloodz and India and Pakistan?
Mark – lol. I love how you say to loads of people to not insult others…whilst you gently insult them!
Tres amusant mon ami!
42. Stizzy : Wait… Wait a second… Am I arguing with a Christian? Because I assumed you were just questioning our perception, not bringing any Evolutionism vs. Creationism to the table… But I guess that if you are, why can’t random chemical reactions eventually lead to ordered and rational intelligence and therefore consciousness and perception? I mean, chaos is a phenomenon, it happens, but in the end it will eventually cause some form of order. So why can’t chemical reactions – that would have been occurring practically ad infinitum before humans – have culminated in what we are now? Living, breathing, reasoning, intelligent creatures?
Sega & Nintendo!! Actually a CRIME that that’s not there :p
43. Dzaky : Crips and Bloods, classic
44. cymraegbachgen87 : Lol, I was pulling a Pi on his ass. There was a difference between what I said and what he said – I thought for a second first, which is all I said he needed to do, argue intelligently.
O boy, im not even going to comment on this list. Im going to get my popcorn and watch the fur fly!
Mark: I didn’t actually realise we were arguing loooool.
Take the building blocks of life. DNA. DNA is composed of information. Where did this information come from? Did it just produce itself rapidly?
Say for example, you have a slow machine with letters instead of fruit. You pull the handle and it randomly spins and eventually you may make “H.U.M.A.N”.
Says “Human” right? Well how do you know it says human? You know because you have dictionaries and dictionaries are full of information, but who wrote these dictionaries? People, intelligence.
You can assemble all manner of random things to form something, but these things won’t have meaning unless meaning has been defined by an intelligence, and this intelligence cannot be purely human because human beings aren’t the supreme authority in the universe. Anything the human defines as truth is relative unless there is an over-arching absolute to refer to, and that requires an outside intelligence.
So, how can the information in DNA produce anything unless meaning has been defined? How is this information even produced?
Also, mutation is mean to be the driving force behind molecules-to-man evolution, yet mutation always involves either reassembling, re-ordering, or a loss of information, never an addition.
You, as an individual, are a composite of information provided by your parents, yet you only have half of the information from both of them. When they die, half of that information will potentially be lost forever.
eek, spelling mistakes. Meant “produce itself randomly” and “slot machine” loool
Marino and Favre battled it out for the record books but this was not an on field rivalary. The Packers and Dolphins rarely played eachother….GO DOLPHINS!!!!
49. Stizzy : Why do I find someone interesting to converse with when I have a bloody exam tomorrow??? What if there isn’t a “supreme authority” – you are a theist aren’t you?
– then humans can’t have intelligence, is that what you’re claiming? I think you completely missed with the absolute truth bit, I don’t think there is an absolute truth so I don’t like that statement. Everything is relative, if it’s defined by humans so be it, that’s what we’re feeling, thinking, perceiving right now. There’s no arbitrary “right” and “wrong” there’s everyone’s thoughts and idea formulated inside them and conmmunicated somehow – whether it be written, oral, other visual means etc. I think it’s specious to claim that we can’t have meaning without a “greater being”.
“Also, mutation is mean to be the driving force behind molecules-to-man evolution, yet mutation always involves either reassembling, re-ordering, or a loss of information, never an addition.
The three (major) types of genetic mutation are Deletion, substitution and ADDITION. (I leave out inversion and duplication here as they are slightly more complex mechanisms)
I don’t think you quite get genetics, Stizzy. You are arguing that information cannot be added (possibly using 2nd law of thermodynamics as reasoning) but I give you this to think about.
Say there is a mutation that causes all carriers to not have a big toe. Now mutation is random. Therefore it is equally likely that somewhere down the line two people carrying this big toe-less mutations have a child which itself has a mutation. This new mutation causes the child to be born WITH a big toe. Surely this is the addition of information? I am painfully aware of this oversimplification!
Check out my posts on the Creationism Your View and look for my New Scientist link – it addresses many of your points.
“because human beings aren’t the supreme authority in the universe”
Really? Prove it.
Don’t make categoric statements if you don’t have categoric proof.
“DNA is composed of information”
AGGGHHHH this is painful to read. No DNA is not composed of information. DNA is composed of a purine or pyrimidine base, a pentose sugar and a phosphate backbone.
It IS a form of information STORE.
You can argue truth and meaning until you are blue in the face, but the process by which we evolved did not require any outside guidance. I urge you to read Dawkins’ “The Selfish Gene” (I think the man himself is arrogant and annoying but his book chronicles quite succinctly how “molecules to man” evolution can naturally occur – even slotting in some simple math to assist)
41. Mark
sorry mark your right about those things. What i meant was when has it gotten one up on science in establishing truth.
stizzy
yeah i like what you say they shouldn’t really be rivalling. science and religion should be for different purposes, the how and the why. its when they cross over.and unfortunately people try to make them crossover believing the biblical view of the formation of the earth etc. its in that crossover that religion can never get one up on science.
as for interpretation of data, :-
“e.g Evidence: millions of animal and plant remains buried beneath layers and layers of rock.
Evoluion and Uniformitarianism: layers laid down gradually through unchanging natural processes over millions of years, showing the upward evolution of organisms.
Creationism: layers laid down rapidly during a global flood over a period of a year, with organisms ordered according to their proximity to sea levels and / or randomly sorted due to intense tidal motions.”
the creationists have to ignore carbon-14 and other types of dating don’t they? SCience could theorise the above defintion of the organisms but dating the different specimens brings it a bit closer to the truth.educate me, do creationists take into account those data? because its very rude to only interpret the data that suits your argument(not that scientists havent done this in the past and no one likes them for doing that)
“there must be an intelligence behind it.
Why?
That is just a hope. A form of comfort blanket so that life actually means more than what is here and now in front of us. The more I look at the Judeo-Christian God, the more insulted and affronted I am. What sort of all powerful being creates creatures in order to be worshipped? He is saying worship me or be damned for all eternity; highly arrogant and not a being worthy or Lordship or worship.
I know that we could never prove the existance of such a being, just as we cannot prove the existence of extra dimensions (although mathematics point towards them) but I would prefer to live my life in a just and good way and be satisfied with my own existance rather than satisfy a power trip of an extra-dimensional being. If He truly is just, then that will be enough for Him.
People say that science is based on facts. That statement is completely false. Science is based on being ignorant of facts. If people knew everything, there would be no science. In the fight between science and religion, science loses, because it never explains the “why”, only the “how” (which a lot of the time is incorrect anyways).
Mark: I am what I am :p “I think you completely missed with the absolute truth bit, I don’t think there is an absolute truth so I don’t like that statement.”
Surely whether you like it or not doesn’t change whether it is true or not. You don’t “think” there is absolute truth, but again, this doesn’t change whether there is absolute truth or not. If everything is relative, how do you even define relativity? It’s a comparison of two different things, yet without absolute truth, how do you know what’s different? You’re relying on your senses right? Well if your senses are the result of random chemical processes, how do you know they’re reliable? How do you know that what your mind is interpreting is what is truly there?
Who said everything is relative? People? Fallible arrangements of molecules driven by random chemical processes?
Can these processes produce the means to write, speak or see?
I believe human beings have intelligence, therefore I believe a greater intelligence gave us that intelligence and the means to understand and communicate it.
cymraegbachgen87: perhaps I should rephrase…NEW information cannot be randomly created. If a mutation causes someone to be born without a big toe, they have lost the genetic information that produces a big toe. Could a random genetic mutation reproduce this lost information? And even if it did, this isn’t new information but pre-existing information. It’s simply losing a toe and regaining a toe, rather than losing a toe and growing wings.