FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


science vs. religion





blackstripes
how bout a topic that a lot of ppl can relate to? did "God" really create the earth? or was is just a form of evolution from super nova? was adam and eve who were really the first humans? or were we monkeys to begin with that evolved to a human state? ok... so sum facts could be false both on science and religion... i mean, wut it seems to me... ppl believe in religion just by reading the bible... but then again, the bible is just a book. ppl could possibly just be reading sum stories made by a fictional writer in the past. or maybe not. science does give in a lot of facts, but then they are pretty hard to understand them... for example.... err..... like a goldfish! scientists say that the goldfish has a bad memory... but how the hell would they know that? they cant speak to a fish!! or even know wut runs in their minds. okay... so the goldfish isnt really a good example on how the world is created... but still, it does give a point that scientist sumtmes dont really know anything. so in everyone's opinion... wut do u think it is? was it a "God" that created the world and all of mankind? or was it evolution?
meretyping
there are a lot of topics like this one, but i tend to believe they aren't mutually exclusive.[/url]
Raijenki
I don't believe in God, and i don't believe in science.
Scienc Motive to don't believe: The planets before the big bang can stay in that minusculous place for 1 seg, then, how the where created?
Religious: I believe that god can't down in the world and say: "I will create a planet called earth".
jongoldsz
I believe that science can solve anything that happens.

Besides in history we are tought that religon was made to explain the unexplainable. An example of this would be the reasons for a flood or earthquake. Since people didn't know why they happened they said the god(s) is/are angry.
otiscom
Religion is a man made moral standard and nothing else.
peetter
I dont believe that God created the earth. There's way too much evidence to prove otherwise.
I can't believe some people in America are actually trying to bring "intelligent design" teaching to school. Their argument is that darwins theory cannot be absolutely proved, so they think it's right to teach intelligent design too.
The only problem is that Darwins theory has massive evidence behind it, years of study that anyone can look up, whereas intelligent design has no basis on reality at all. There's no proof to back it up. It's just made up. Shocked
Just because some religious fanatics can't get to graps with the theory of evolution, they say it's too complicated to have evolved, as Darwin suggested. I'd like to see them contradict darwins evidence first, and if they can do that, which I doubt, then they could bring forward THEIR evidence, the thing their theory is based on. There is none. Only the statement that the nature is so complicated it has to be designed by an intelligent being.
Yeah, ever heard of an intelligent being called Mother Nature? Wink
Varun
what you really have to ask yourself is, who made all these religions? and how did man came to know about god? and if there are Aliens then do they also have the same gods or different gods? i tend to believe that no god created what we have now...i really believe what science tells is true
startsomething
I agree that religion is to explain the unexplainable, which can now be explained with science. But I still think that there can be room for religion. It just needs to be updated from a 2000+ year old one.

Hey, if you like this topic, or any other philisophical debates, check out my website! (Please help, I need traffic) Rolling Eyes
..:: Start Something ::..
mike4652
Quote:
darwins theory

This says it all THEORY! A theory is something not proven yet!
Charles him self said that evolution was a theory. And there is no physical prof. All living creatures re-produce after thier kind. nothing is half of one kind and half of another. Nothing was created by chance! All living things on earth serve a purpose. Even salt water helps keep the earth warm. that in it self proves design. Wink
mike4652
Quote:
whereas intelligent design has no basis on reality at all

History, Geology, Not to mention that there is more historical writings that back up the Bible than any other writings.
Science will not accept design because it is to simple for them.
Science states that the earth just happened.
I will accept design over accident any time.
Johnman239
Here's my take on everything, it does seem Religion is "made-up", but that doesn't mean there isn't a god, infact I believe there is some sort of entity overlooking the universe, although at the same time I think evolution may also be true...

If any of you have ever played SimEarth, the users or players view would be similar to the "Gods" (in my mind), pushing things to see what happens, like a big curious all powerful cat.
blueknot
Religion is man standard.

Science is the future.

Religion is Relative


-depends on pope, people, priest, ... etc. who determine it ? who standardise it ? who's correct ? who knows ?
Jayfarer
meretyping wrote:
there are a lot of topics like this one, but i tend to believe they aren't mutually exclusive.[/url]


Yes. They can co-exist quite easily if you make concessions or compromises in some areas.
LeviticusMky
mike4652 wrote:
Quote:
darwins theory

This says it all THEORY! A theory is something not proven yet!
Charles him self said that evolution was a theory. And there is no physical prof. All living creatures re-produce after thier kind. nothing is half of one kind and half of another. Nothing was created by chance! All living things on earth serve a purpose. Even salt water helps keep the earth warm. that in it self proves design. Wink


Yeah, with that logic, everything EVER is a theory. I can't prove that you actually exist, so perhaps I'll just pretend that you don't that I'm the center of the universe, and that the only thing that is real is my dreams.

The whole idea of a scientific theory is that it is accepted to be true, even though it can't be proven. Things like gravity, the Earth's rotation, and evolution all cannot be proven, but they are the only LOGICAL explanation.

Religion defies all logic. Creationism is a guess, a purely dogmatic response to the idea that mankind could exist without a god.

I agree with what was said before, religion is a moral code. The problem is that it is a moral code that promotes inequity, intolerance, and hatred for outsiders. Sure, it's great for those inside the religion, but look at the fundies that we've got here in america, and compare them to the fundies across the seas. Same deal.
blackstripes
another thing that i must point out that seems odd to me... God created the world, right? so if he did why the hell would he create other gods and make some commandment sayin hat ppl should only respect him only? that's almost like saying that a guy is not gay but prefers the company of men. (no offense, just an example)
S3nd K3ys
Raijenki wrote:
I don't believe in God, and i don't believe in science.
:




Milk just came thru my nose. (I'm glad I wasn't eating a cookie or something!) Very Happy

Whether you believe in science or not, it DOES exist.

"i don't believe in science." LMAO!

Quote:
sci·ence
n.

1.
1. The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
2. Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena.
3. Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.
2. Methodological activity, discipline, or study: I've got packing a suitcase down to a science.
3. An activity that appears to require study and method: the science of purchasing.
4. Knowledge, especially that gained through experience.
Arnie
Blueknot: Science isn't man-made? Science isn't relative? (ask Einstein)
blueknot
haha,

to me , science is a language.

it's a tool, ya a man-made tool that you use to advance our self.

religion, is too a man-made one to restrain ourself.
KHO
l believe God created us all, and l believe this not because l've been preached to my whole life, or that l have a need for something to fill the "gap" l believe because His power is shown to me, and l have witnessed miracles first hand. And this on top of the fact that, when you read the Bible, you will see it say things that science goes against, then a few years later, science will say they were wrong and this is right.

Every day l feel the awesome power of my God, so that is why l know He exists beyond a shadow of a doubt!
Davidgr1200
"A theory is something not proven yet!"

Noq quite true. A theory is just a fancy word for an explanation. It acn be a proven theory or an unproven theory or something in between.
saiyeek
I believe in god. God is the supreme power. Everything is created by nature and I believe that nature is god. I think science is just a bit of exploration of the wonderful creations of nature.
avk
Take a look at the following two sayings

A priest: the world has been created by the lord
A scientist: This has been ny the nebular hypothesis which says...........BLAH........ BLAH .......

Since, I am none of these so i say it must be somewhere between as in Chemistry there are resonating structres of some compounds like Nitrogen dioxide, Ammonia..
______________________________________________________________
avk
DID u READ your SCIENCE book PROPERLY.......
goutha
The problem with religion vs. science is this that religion can be disproven by scientific means. In fact, this has been going on almost continuously since Galileo, but the Catholic church and others have managed to pretend that this is not the case. Unfortunately, science can also be "disproven" by religious means -- mainly by saying "God HAS to exist because I believe in him"). Scientists, being scientific, will not accept that religious argument, and religious people, being religious, will not accept the scientific argument.

So the two are forever doomed to disagree since they are not even working in the same framework of reality. If you like, they are in the same X-Y coordinates, but are on different Z planes entirely. It looks like they're meeting, from above, but that's just not the case. This is why people who call themselves "religious scientists".
hangnhu
I believe that science and religion can become one, it just that on our planet, human just have too many opinions and disagree too much (off course if that isn't the case, this wouldn't be life or earth, but something quite impossible to imagine or some place far far too boring, variety is life, vabirant is colourful life)

I believe god created the earth, but he dislike explaining things as clear as scientish, (obviously otherwise someone might know it all and try and become god themseleve)

I think everyone should read Angels & Demon by Dan Brown, I know it fictional, but just read it, it makes alot of sence.

The big bang was create out of nothing, so was this universe, the only question that left from scienist is what was before the big bang. I don't like to question too much about creation, because what would we do if all questions were answers and all problem were solve? these questions are here to keep us going, by not answering them, we have something to do. beside making money.

science, help imporve life, if uses correctly (as we can see where science has brought human today), religion give us a center to a good moral life, if follow correctly and if we understand it correctly (religion, incorrect understand could lead to major crisis, as we seen in the past)

anyway, the major problem is because they don't work together, that what devide people appart (I guest they are destine to be yin yang)
mike4652
Quote:
A theory is just a fancy word for an explanation.

Theory also means to guess.
And that is what the theory of evolution is a guess with no proof.
S3nd K3ys
mike4652 wrote:

Theory also means to guess.



Actually, it's more of an educated guess.

Quote:

And that is what the theory of evolution is a guess with no proof.


Evolution, in this context, is how life in general changes over time. There is little doubt that life on earth has changed over time. It is believed that 99% of all the species that have lived on earth, are now extinct.

Extinction of a species is one way in which life evolves. The theory that evolution occurs within populations of life forms on earth is well supported: Scientists measure gene frequencies and protein structures in a group of organisms, and then see how those frequencies and structures change over time.

There's enough proof to rename it the fact of evolution. It's not only what really happened, it's happening still. If the origin of life (ie. not the development or variation) is what the question is about, that is more hazy. God creating the Earth is not necessarily at odds with evolution of species. It's not my belief, but god whipping a batch of primordial soup a few billion years ago could explain the beginning of evolution of species just as god's "creation" of the Big Bang could explain the origin of the cosmos.

It's a lot more than one scientist's beliefs. It's generations of people's evidence that we should believe. Or should we instead believe someone who spends their entire life trying to debunk evolutionary theory because it contradicts a belief system based on nothing but generations of people's belief in that system? There just ain't no evidence to support the 7-day theory (or is it 6 plus a day of rest...much needed after fitting billions of years worth of work into less than a week).
mike4652
Quote:
There just ain't no evidence to support the 7-day theory

But we will try to get folks to believe that the world just showed up one day, or a big explosion started the ball rolling. But as long as science says it it is true.
Devine creation gives purpose for life and all creation. Science places it all on chance not purpose.
Scott
Quote:
but how the hell would they know that? they cant speak to a fish!!


They actually have done this through intense study of the brain structure, you don't need to talk to a fish. You use something called experimentation. Scientists have had the brain's main areas mapped out for quite awhile, and you can easily see what parts of the brain are used at certain times. There are all sorts of brain scanning techniques out there that aid in this sort of research.

Quote:
Theory also means to guess.


Sorry dude, a theory is FAR from a guess.

Quote:
Theory: A well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses"; "true in fact and theory".


Theories-to-be are tested over and over and over again before they are proclaimed theories.
Arnie
The generally accepted idea in science is that a theory is accepted until a better one comes up. The better one should explain things the old couldn't, while still being able to explain observations the old theory could explain. The idea is that way you'll be getting closer to reality with each new theory.

I'm not taking a stand in this discussion - for a change Very Happy - this is just information. I find it interesting though how S3nd K3ys speaks of 'beliefs'. Apparently science is a matter of believing just as religion is. In relation to my previous post: science can be a form of religion just as well. It's putting your faith in human knowledge. Then the question remains where religions originate from - from man? Believers will deny. But believers in science will also deny that it was man that created everything they research. For example it's not human intelligence that created the elements like H, O, C, I etc. but they only discovered and analysed it.

edit: typo
subway
Belief in science is resultant from mans unquenchable quest for the search
of answers.

the bare truth is that religion encompasses science but not vice versa.
hangnhu
This subject is getting too instense and it like 2am in the morning and I just finish updating stuff, so I'm off to bed.

Although, I like to point out, I don't like how this place is moving around, why do scientist & religious have to battle?????

why can't they support each other, and who said evolution aint real? sure it a fancy word, that means change, if things don't chances why are things are like they are now? if chance don't happen, how you compare history and present?????

never mind, off to bed, talk tomorrow, when head is clear
Dorfinger
peetter wrote:
I dont believe that God created the earth. There's way too much evidence to prove otherwise.
I can't believe some people in America are actually trying to bring "intelligent design" teaching to school. Their argument is that darwins theory cannot be absolutely proved, so they think it's right to teach intelligent design too.
The only problem is that Darwins theory has massive evidence behind it, years of study that anyone can look up, whereas intelligent design has no basis on reality at all. There's no proof to back it up. It's just made up. Shocked
Just because some religious fanatics can't get to graps with the theory of evolution, they say it's too complicated to have evolved, as Darwin suggested. I'd like to see them contradict darwins evidence first, and if they can do that, which I doubt, then they could bring forward THEIR evidence, the thing their theory is based on. There is none. Only the statement that the nature is so complicated it has to be designed by an intelligent being.
Yeah, ever heard of an intelligent being called Mother Nature? Wink


What about Darwin ?
Seems you got a lot of lobbys in NA . They also seems to be very powerfull .
jinn666
Science is man's understanding of the world.

Religion is a way of life from God.

You might think that Religion is man made, that is your opinion

But to those who believe it, it’s a word from God.

Though in Religion God has tried explaining to man about the working (science) of this world.
God does not need to explain everything and has set a test to man to seek out knowledge.

Those who try to compare science with Religion are fools or ignorant.
These people don’t really understand anything. Just because you don’t believe in a Religion, you use science as a weapon to destroy ones belief in God.
hangnhu
jinn666 wrote:
Science is man's understanding of the world.

Religion is a way of life from God.

You might think that Religion is man made, that is your opinion

But to those who believe it, it’s a word from God.

Though in Religion God has tried explaining to man about the working (science) of this world.
God does not need to explain everything and has set a test to man to seek out knowledge.

Those who try to compare science with Religion are fools or ignorant.
These people don’t really understand anything. Just because you don’t believe in a Religion, you use science as a weapon to destroy ones belief in God.


well said neightbour, hiya, me from london too, thought I'm not anywhere near london at the mom

the things is, those who think they can uses science as a weapon to dissovle others belief in the god, is like a test of indugence, if those are easily destoryed of belief, let them be, they weren't such strong believers in the first place, and if they meant to follow god, they'll do so one day, with or without the help of understanding the world in the way of science
James Bond-007
I am Catholic, but science has definately got me going, at it is hard to think of how both ways can be possible. On the topic on how the universe came to be, its somethig we will never really understand.
S3nd K3ys
hangnhu wrote:
those who think they can uses science as a weapon to dissovle others belief in the god,



Shocked Shocked Huh?

A weapon to disprove God?

First of all I seriously doubt that's the sole intention of science. Secondly, it wouldn't be a matter of disproving it, as it is already UNPROVABLE. Therefore it would be up to you (or science) to PROVE it.
Arnie
The question is: who defines what proof is? If science dictates the rules for proof to be correct, it's like a self-fulfilling prohecy.
S3nd K3ys
Arnie wrote:
The question is: who defines what proof is? If science dictates the rules for proof to be correct, it's like a self-fulfilling prohecy.


Are you going to make up your own rules for physics? Shocked
ocalhoun
S3nd K3ys wrote:
Are you going to make up your own rules for physics? Shocked


That's a wonderfull idea!
S3nd K3ys
ocalhoun wrote:
S3nd K3ys wrote:
Are you going to make up your own rules for physics? Shocked


That's a wonderfull idea!


Yeah, it's a great idea, in theory. Wink
Arnie
Yes S3nd, man made it's own rules for physics. Man made science. Of course man took those rules from what they observe, but that doesn't mean man's thinking and observing is so perfect it can totally grasp and analyze flawlessly. Man-made physics laws aren't complete and perfect. The theory of generatio spontanea was also considered scientifically correct because people saw dirty laundry and rats coming out of them.

The point is though, scientifical laws and regulations don't have to be the judging standard. That's why demanding a scientific proof of religion is exactly like (see it as a mirror) demanding a religious proof of science. In that example science should be proven to be correct by religious standards instead of vice-versa. Now who decides which standard is higher? Who decides what should be judged by what? There's the nuance I tried to express in a small posting for a change:
Quote:
The question is: who defines what proof is?
So who decides which standard is higher? I think every individual does so for himself. That's what I meant with this:
Quote:
Apparently science is a matter of believing just as religion is. [..] Science can be a form of religion just as well. It's putting your faith in human knowledge.


Spare me the ironic? Shocked btw, I'm not taking a stand in this discussion. As you can see I'm only giving some neutral thoughts about what's said. But for defenders of science that may look like I'm taking stand with religion and vice-versa. Anyway there's no need to Shocked me to show how ridiculous you find my thoughts. Wink Thanks for the respect
S3nd K3ys
Arnie wrote:
Yes S3nd, man made it's own rules for physics. Man made science. Of course they took them from nature, but that doesn't mean man's thinking is so perfect it can totally grasp and analyze what he sees.



If by 'made it's own rules' you mean applied it's own terms to the rules, then yes, you're correct.

BUT... the rules governing the properties of things like gravity, light, energy, material properties, fusion and others, are not something that can be 'changed' or 'made up', as you put it.

Quote:
Acceleration due to gravity g 9.806 65 m/s2

Earth mass ME 5.973 70(76) x 1024 kg

electron charge magnitude e 1.602 177 33(49) x 10-19 C =

gravitational constant GN 6.672 59(85) x 10-11 m3/(kg s2) =

speed of light in vacuum c 299 792 458 m/s

Arnie
Arnie wrote:
Man-made physics laws aren't complete and perfect.
Though I know what you mean - there are perfect laws out there that we don't understand but that are in effect anyways. But we're talking about science as man experiences it here, because we were talking about "scientifically proving religion". So it's restricted to the human science here.
S3nd K3ys
Arnie wrote:
Quote:
Man-made physics laws aren't complete and perfect.
I know what you mean - there are perfect laws out there that we don't understand but that are in effect anyways. But we're talking about science as man experiences it here, because we were talking about "scientifically proving religion". So it's restricted to the human science here.


After at least 3 edits... Wink

I will agree with you.

Arnie
Heh, I reread it and thought I should clarify it Wink
THE11thROCK™
This topic can really be dangerous and prone to flame wars if not properly handled.

As for myself, science and religion can be explained and proven as co-existant, if properly searched. I myself, am a Creationist. I would not delve more into this for I know that some may take advantage of this topic to start flames.

However, we must also realize for a certain fact that Science itself must be a form of knowledge that must be proven. For this, I can say that many of those people who call themselves scientists, only made theories (still unproven) which they make as evidence to attack religion (more specifically Creation). For one thing, Theory and Science is not equal and same. Theory is unproven (hypothetical and intelligent guess), while Science is proven (based on systematized body of knowledge and proven facts).

So to call religion only a fiction or theory when in fact many of those being taught in Science in itself are theories, is completely baseless.

I respect everyone's ideas about this matter. However, probing more into this topic in this forum may result in flaming and hate threads.

If anyone wants to talk about this, and want to know more of my ideas, you can PM me.
Very Happy
S3nd K3ys
THE11thROCK™ wrote:
..

However, we must also realize for a certain fact that Science itself must be a form of knowledge that must be proven.


Actually, science is often based on 'disproving' something as opposed to 'proving' something.

IOW, the ability to disprove something is often easier than the ability to prove it.
THE11thROCK™
If you know the definition of science, you should know that it is a systematic body of knowledge that must be proven. Proven, which means there must be scientific process and evidence. In case of theories, it still is not proven.

Science tends to disprove itself only if something more factual (like a new discovery) comes up.
S3nd K3ys
THE11thROCK™ wrote:
If you know the definition of science, you should know that it is a systematic body of knowledge that must be proven. Proven, which means there must be scientific process and evidence. In case of theories, it still is not proven.

Science tends to disprove itself only if something more factual (like a new discovery) comes up.


Science is also dynamic in that it changes as these 'proofs' emerge. It's not 'set in stone' as some would think.
yule
I am believed the science, other partly believes half suspicion.
THE11thROCK™
Quote:
Science is also dynamic in that it changes as these 'proofs' emerge. It's not 'set in stone' as some would think.


Only if those "Proofs" emerge, as you say, can it be called Science. Otherwise, any unproven claims should still be treated as hypothesis or more so, an inference. Wink
olah
People who are religious are deluded. Why do they insist on believing on a deity that they never see? Heaven is what you make it, so don't rely on Gods and Temples to give you what you want. You make your own destiny, and only you determine the quality of your life.

Religion causes people to do some pretty horrible things, because humans as a whole are a relatively young species and are scared of the unknown. Science is still young, but soon it will be able to solve everything. With knowledge at our finger tips, it is only natural we will evolve into a more enlightened society.
dhpersonal
I think that if you believe in a religion that does not agree with PROVEN science, you are a nut. Not to name any names.
Revvion
I think god is just a figure we created to point out our faults and our good points and so that we can strive towards a goal to be better (evolve), but if you think about it we are a bit stupid, we pray to god for others poeples luck etc etc but what we really do is pray so that we can go to heaven (if you believe in heaven and hell) so mostly poeple only pray for themselves to feel better. thats why i think a real god can not exist and if he did wouln't it just be a live form with differend abillity's because we can say now that things like creating live with our thoughs are impossible but we can only say this because we havent experienced other wise so dont get me wrong but isnt science an explanation to god? Poeple believe in god simple because the can't comprehent everything and thats why they come up with science and god withs may be right but on the other hand can be completly wrong because we are limited by our own way of thinking.
finding_primo
I think the bible is the biggest selling fiction book... ever! I mean, if dinosaurs came before humans, why, according to the bible is Adam and Eve the first things to walk the earth. Also, it has a page 666... If they were that religious they'd skip that page. ^_^ These are only my views... Feel free not to listen to me. I'm only young ^_^
OnlyOneLife
I am completely non religious, although there will always be something science can't prove or always some questions sciences can never answer like, how did we come to exist?
budazz
its so sad that to many pips here dont believe in GOD...
PatTheGreat42
You should always put science before religion, because you can build upon science. You can't build anything useful upon religion.
PatTheGreat42
And science can answer EVERYTHING. You just have to think hard enough.
blackstripes
my world religions teacher stated to the class that "religion" is just a way to get by life... i mean... u gotta believe in something to get through life? right? but then again... my belief in religion isnt really on it's highest priority, i believe in myself more. i cant just rely on miracles hoping for them to actually happen.
smokey4life
otiscom wrote:
Religion is a man made moral standard and nothing else.

I cant agree with this enough,
religion is merely created by man to make others abide by thier standards,way of life as well as law.
hangnhu
blackstripes wrote:
my world religions teacher stated to the class that "religion" is just a way to get by life... i mean... u gotta believe in something to get through life? right? but then again... my belief in religion isnt really on it's highest priority, i believe in myself more. i cant just rely on miracles hoping for them to actually happen.


You don't have to believe in anything, I think to get by, but by having a religion, you have some focal point to life. It doesn't have to that great an effect, and it shouldn't effect science either, if two was put together correctly. If you don't actually believe in anything, I can't imagine how it is you get by, or whether you actually just waiting to die, believing in science and getting by, that like believing everything is possible, so that some good hopes too Smile
riv_
I just have to say that it has been the study of science that led me to the conviction that there [/i]is a God.
Science answers a lot of questions, but it only leads to more questions:
    [list=]life is more than the sum of it's parts... what fills them out

[list=][i]why
do organic molecules always form predictably, geometrically?[/list]
[list=]How does a stem cell know what to differentiate into[/list]
[list=]How can a black hole suck everything into itself, and spew everything out, at the same time...[/list][/list]
And so on, ad infinitum.
We can explain how things work a lot of the time. But something, someOne had to have made it so in the first place.
Science and religion are not mutually exclusive. They complete one another.
It is truly heartbreaking to me that christian and scientific communities have been unable to embrace this most important fact in their search for truth.
Haposai
Usually I avoid these type of debates, but I've always enjoyed reading other people's point of views and understanding their justification.

So which is it? Religion or Science? Did God, or whatever diety you worship, create us, or are we the result of some primordal ooze that decided to get up one day and learn to dance?

Talk! Discuss! Mingle people!!

Food for thought! Bring back sporks!!
David_Pardy
Oh dear, not another one of these Wink.

I believe in God, and I have witnessed His work, meaning I've recieved healing for things, I've seen other people healed for things and I've also healed someone (through God).

I also believe in young earth Creationism and I take Genesis literally. Every time I get into an Evolution/Creation debate it only reinforces my beliefs as I see more and more holes in the theory of Evolution.
SgtGarcia
I dont believe in some kind of god. I have got al lot of friends who do. It leads to interesting discussions at some points. Some say we can't go to a restaurant at sunday because you are not allowed to work on sunday en therefore not allowed to let somebody alse work for you.
I still believe in the scientific part, but it's isn't really clear how it happened exactly. Although theories about the "big bang" are the most realistic in my opninion.
Kiliox
Read Epicure's letters

Then you will understand my opinion concerning God.
Garg
I don't really like the title of this forum : Religion OR Science...

I think you can't possibly think of one without the other. The world we know today is trying to answer another question :

"How can we accomodate scientific knowledge with the subjectivity of a belief in one or more religion".

Personnaly, i believe that as long as the mystery of death is solved, religion will always exist. Religion allows believers not to fear the end of a life through different scientifically unprooven solutions :

- ressurection
- reincarnation

Now science will never be able to explain life after death, thus, there will always be poeple believing in religions and mass suicide sects.

My 2 cents
XSTG
Well you know what I think?

If there is a god that exists, he created us to think about this question.
If it is science... who created science? Who created the one who did it?

I don't believe in a kind of god like some people here... I think it's just our imagination's invention...

Very Happy
Ivory Keys
Hmm, I think there is no such thing as a god who created the world. I believe in the big bang and I think, short said, that people 'created god' with their own minds and not vice versa. Back in the old days (like around Christ) humans couldn't explain a lot of things of mother nature so they attributed it to an unknown 'something' they called god. That's in short how I think of it.
komy
euh for me is very diificult to take a position for this debate.GOD or science.anywhere in the science, more thing can't explicate and this things is explicate in religion for example "the big bang".
nilsmo
IMHO, god is just a bit of imagination. Just look at all the different religions out there.
drtooty
SCIENCE IS MAD. EVERY DAY THEY DISCOVER THAT THEY ARE WRONG.

SO THE MOST CONSTANT THING IN EARTH IS THAT THERE IS NO GOD BUT ALLAH AND THAT MOUHAMMED IS THE MESSENGER OF ALLAH
Rolling Eyes
NeShYU
I dont believe in God, but i belive in superior. I belive in ghousts, vampires (but only when i watch some good film with them)......... I think that we becamed from some kind of animmal but not from monkey. I'm maybe crazy, but that is what i think. There is some other world where are we going when we die bout it is not heven on paradeise. (sorry for spelling)
coolclay
I agree the title of this is not the best, science is very much a religion. In science nothing is proven. Ever. You can ask any top level scientist and they well tell you that science doesn't prove anything they just believe it, and hypothesize things. They don't call it the big bang theory and the theory of evolution for nothing. Its called a theory because its a belief, just as much as creation, and intelligent design.

Anyway I am a biologist, a scientist. I still believe in creationism as explained in the bible, it as good an explanation as any other theory. Even the scientists that specialize in studying the big bang theory and things like that don't know what caused it, and how or why it happened.

As for the whole evolution debate, there is no way in hell that life was formed just by the chance that some chemicals, arranged them self in the right formation and then life just appeared. It is much more likely that there is a higher power that arranged these chemicals perfectly to create life.

Microevolution exists, but this does not in any way show how some random chemicals just sayed "hey lets organize ourselves in the perfect arrangement so that we become alive".

So there you go there's my opinion
pll
I don't really believe in god... God is for me a reason to live... But I don't think the science is best Arrow
Kestrel
Personally, I don't believe in God. Nor that he can do any sort of "healing" or grant prayers, any of that bull. I used to be a Christian, I used to pray, go to church, all that stupid stuff. But after a while, I became an atheist. God never answered my prayers. And those of you that say he has, you're lying. All it was was a coincidence.
David_Pardy
Kestrel - I'm not lying when I say I've had answered prayers. I've had many more unanswered prayers too. Your problem is that you gave up. I have healed people, I have experienced healings and I have seen other people healed of things. That's just the tip of the iceberg. You can call me a liar if you want, but why would I lie to support my belief? If I didn't truly believe God was real from the things that I have experienced then I would simply stop believing, but as yet I have plenty of reason to continue believing.
a.Bird
coolclay wrote:
I agree the title of this is not the best, science is very much a religion. In science nothing is proven. Ever. You can ask any top level scientist and they well tell you that science doesn't prove anything they just believe it, and hypothesize things. They don't call it the big bang theory and the theory of evolution for nothing. Its called a theory because its a belief, just as much as creation, and intelligent design.

I think it depends on how you define "religion". If you want to make your own definition, then sure, science is a religion. Other wise, science certainly does not hold itself under the constraints of a belief in a supernatural power. Science involves facts and possible solutions. Creationism is a possible solution, but certainly not based on proven facts. In fact, creationism takes all that science is used to prove, throws it out the window and says "listen, it's very simple; something we cannot see, taste, touch, hear or feel and that has some supreme power that guides everything we cannot understand created all of this so stop searching for a logical solution." Basically, religion is an imaginary story (maybe true, maybe not, no one KNOWS) which is told to people by people who believe in it as TRUTH, thus perpetuating an unfounded belief as something to live by.

coolclay wrote:
Anyway I am a biologist, a scientist. I still believe in creationism as explained in the bible, it as good an explanation as any other theory. Even the scientists that specialize in studying the big bang theory and things like that don't know what caused it, and how or why it happened.

Calling yourself a scientist, I cannot see how you can say that creationism is as good a theory as evolution. I hardly see how you can consider creationism a theory at all. It's true that both ideas are not completely proven, evolution has much more logical reasoning and research behind it than creationism, and to put them on the same level is to discredit everything evolution tries to explain with that logical reasoning, whereas Creationism is simply an unfounded idea that is based on an imaginary idea. I say it's imaginary because all anyone has to go on to explain creationism is solely their imagination.

coolclay wrote:
As for the whole evolution debate, there is no way in hell that life was formed just by the chance that some chemicals, arranged them self in the right formation and then life just appeared. It is much more likely that there is a higher power that arranged these chemicals perfectly to create life.

Microevolution exists, but this does not in any way show how some random chemicals just sayed "hey lets organize ourselves in the perfect arrangement so that we become alive".

So there you go there's my opinion

You know what? I don't think some random chemicals "just sayed 'hey lets orgainze ourselves in the perfect arrangement so taht we become alive". It took billions of years for them to "become alive". I think your explanation of evolution is much more true to the beliefs of creationism, where some supernatural power just made that decision over cornchips and coca-cola one afternoon. You say "there is no way in hell that life was formed by the chance that some chemicals arranged themselves in the right formation and then life just appeared" ? Replace "the chance" with "God" and you've got yourself the explanation for creationism, that life "just appeared". Well you're stretching things because you're saying that life "Just appeared" when we see life developing constantly.

I'm not even sure what to say, you don't sound much like a scientist to any degree, just another believer who wishes to immediately disregard the undeniable logic of science and carbon dating and fossils and race differentiation. What's more, I can basically say I'm God, and as much as I know you would hate to believe it, I can say that I'm God without proof of any kind, in a completely illogical fashion. THis is the basis for creationism and religion.
a.Bird
David_Pardy wrote:
Kestrel - I'm not lying when I say I've had answered prayers. I've had many more unanswered prayers too. Your problem is that you gave up. I have healed people, I have experienced healings and I have seen other people healed of things. That's just the tip of the iceberg. You can call me a liar if you want, but why would I lie to support my belief? If I didn't truly believe God was real from the things that I have experienced then I would simply stop believing, but as yet I have plenty of reason to continue believing.


Perhaps this healing has nothing to do with God. Why do you not believe that this healing is the power of positive thinking and the potential of the human brain. We are resiliant creatures. Is as if (and this is NOT directed to you, I'm not assuming I know who you are) that most middle class, American Christians believe that such small problems they face, most of them financial (ha) are solved by some ultimate power of God when there are people in third-world countries who don't believe in God and fight to survive every day, no doubt having 10 times the survival skills that the said Christians have. It just makes me die with internal amusement.
mceejaydee
Scientists are guessing. Prehistoric, evolution are some of the words that have nothing to do with religion. In the bible they said dinosaurs and man were created at the same time. But people have their beliefs and i'll have mine. In that case I believe in religion, God created everything and that's all there is to it.
jeddy
aw...i kind hate both but if I have to choose one I gotta choose science cuz i'mma be a nurse when I grew up. what ya think?
Kestrel
David_Pardy wrote:
Kestrel - I'm not lying when I say I've had answered prayers. I've had many more unanswered prayers too. Your problem is that you gave up. I have healed people, I have experienced healings and I have seen other people healed of things. That's just the tip of the iceberg. You can call me a liar if you want, but why would I lie to support my belief? If I didn't truly believe God was real from the things that I have experienced then I would simply stop believing, but as yet I have plenty of reason to continue believing.


As I said, COINCIDENCE. "God" didn't do this. These things just happened to happen in your life after you've asked for them, possibly because you're more motivated to accomplish them, or see them in a different way. Just because you got something you prayed for doesn't mean this was an act of God.
coolclay
But it doesn't necessarily mean it wasn't from God either.
Mrs Lycos
When you treat science as a replacement of religion, there you have a problem. If you believe science is allmighty, and that it can answer every aspect of life, then you are utterly wrong.
Take it for example, there are still (many) bugs on the 'evolution theory'. Do you still think that a giraffe got a long neck because it needed to reach higher leaves and/ or got exposed to radiation and got genes mixed up? Or if you really believe you come from a monkey, that's a poor vision you have of yourself. I believe God created humankind as perfectly as it can get, and actually it has devolved over time.
TeK
I don't believe whole-heartly in either. Science can't explain everything, though it may try, and most religions have been editted by man over the ages to fit their desires.... Go fencesitters! lol
David_Pardy
a.Bird - there are actually more people in third world countries turning to Christ and millions of those people are recieving physical healings because unlike people in the Western world, they aren't skeptical of their beliefs because of worrying about what their peers think. They are seeing these things happen because they expect them to.

Kestrel - I'm sorry, but my leg growing an inch longer and my back being straightened from scolliosus does not just happen by coincidence. They were healed in an instant. I healed my girlfriend's knee, in two stages over two days, she'd had a problem for a few years related to an accident she'd had while rock-climbing. I have seen many other people be healed. Saying this is all coincidence is just ignorance, you gave up on God, therefore you don't see these things. You are obviously not happy and you actually sound like quite an angry person - maybe instead of blaming God for not answering your prayers, you should instead turn to Him and ask Him to take your hand?

You see.. You know you're getting things right, when everything is going wrong. Satan sees you as a threat, therefore he throws up temptations both for yourself and for other people who you interact with, although those who are weaker spiritually (or not a believer at all) are more likely to give into any temptation and in many cases temptations affect more than just the person who falls.

I've doubted my beliefs in the past, many times. God has shown me time and time again that He is most certainly real. Please don't try and think that I'm just a blind fanboy, because I'm not. I'm where I am today because God has brought me here, I know He's real and that is why I'm writting this message to you tonight.
Kestrel
David_Pardy wrote:
I'm where I am today because God has brought me here, I know He's real and that is why I'm writting this message to you tonight.


How do you know he's real? Because he supposedly "healed" you and your girlfriend? Yeah, whatever. Do you have proof of this? No. You can't prove anything in the world. Everything that someone believes or disbelieves is ambition.

And you say I'm an angry person? Well, yeah I'm angry. Christians and many other religions that believe there is one "almighty power" try to push their way of thinking onto others. Right now in our school there is a "prayer circle" trying to "get Satan out of our school." This pisses me off to no end. There is no Satan. How the hell can you get rid of something that's not there? They say they're trying to change people's way of thinking (the Satanists). But there are no Satanists in our school. They just want some excuse to bring attention to a debated topic. They want some reason to be able to pray in school, as it is illegal to pray in school (like at a convication or something along those lines).

Anyhow, I'm done discussing this topic with you.
Bondings
Kestrel wrote:
Right now in our school there is a "prayer circle" trying to "get Satan out of our school."

You were kidding, right? Confused


I can already imagine the what might happen next.
Physics exam wrote:
Question: Why does the earth attract us?
Answer: Because God wants us to walk on the ground.

Rolling Eyes
illini319
why is it that those who line up in these types of debates only see black and white? both sides. Any scientist worth his salt is NOT an atheist. Atheism implies that you have evidence that a god does not exist. This is a statement that is fundamentally flawed. One cannot have evidence for something that does not exist. It's negative data and is therefore uninterpretable. If one cannot find any evidence to prove the existence of something, then one MUST withold their conclusions until they obtain key pieces of evidence (one way or the other). Therefore, one can be religious and be scientific AT THE SAME TIME, without being inconsistent with either facet of their life. think about it.
Bondings
illini319 wrote:
Atheism implies that you have evidence that a god does not exist.

That's not true. Atheism implies that you believe there is no god. Just like religious people believe that there is a god.
Kestrel
Bondings wrote:
Kestrel wrote:
Right now in our school there is a "prayer circle" trying to "get Satan out of our school."

You were kidding, right? Confused


Actually, no, I'm serious. There's a group of about 10-20 kids from grades 7-12 in this thing.
hades9366
I had a hard time reading this topic to the end because I have a hard time taking this topic particularly seriously anymore. When I was fifteen this seemed like an important question to me and I spent the next ten years reading philosophy, psychology and religious texts of various kinds. In the end I'm left with the same kinds of questions that I started with and nothing to show for the effort but a lot of rhetoric for justifying whatever beliefs or prejudices I had to begin with.

Unless you accept the doctrine of blind faith, which is antithetical to everything I value about human nature, then you have to accept that certain questions are unanswerable by human beings given our current intelligence and modes of understanding the world.

Language is a closed self-referential system and as a tool for examining the world it only works with things we can observe. We simply can't accurately label experiences that exist outside of our closed system. There is no universally observable phenomena that we can point to and label and so we end up attempting to draw analogies to experiences that occur within our sphere of understanding. In order for someone to attain knowledge of god or religion they must first accept these undefinable analogous labels which can never really represent the thing that they attempt to signify. Any kind of accurate knowledge about God or religion is impossible without blind faith. Philosophy is useful insofar as it allows us to question the nature of our experience but any answer derived from philosophy requires faith in a theory in order to solidify it into a dogma. "I think therefore I am"? Bah humbug! I think therefore I think I am. Science? As has been previously mentioned science works on the theory of the null hypothesis, (as I believe it's called? any scientists able to verify this?) which states that the theory that we accept as true is just the one that we aren't able to disprove yet. Science at least is rigorous in that it is always open to the possibility that it is wrong.

I believe that it is human nature to explore and attempt to understand our world and I believe that this is a noble thing and whatever tools people employ in order to attempt this I can only say the best of luck to them. For myself these days I find more genuine exploration in art and literature than in any of the traditional methods of asking the big questions about the meaning of life.

What do I Know though? I'm not arrogant enough to ask anyone to adopt my belief systems. Live and let live. Go with whatever does it for you just don't take it too seriously.
illini319
Bondings wrote:
illini319 wrote:
Atheism implies that you have evidence that a god does not exist.

That's not true. Atheism implies that you believe there is no god. Just like religious people believe that there is a god.


Atheists believe there is no god, implying that... god does not exist. Of course, I cannot discount those who believe in a God, but are atheistic (i.e. acknowledging that a god exists; but choosing not to believe in it).
illini319
hades9366 wrote:
Science at least is rigorous in that it is always open to the possibility that it is wrong.


In an ideal world, this would be true... Religion and science are based on different belief structures. And as such, neither likes it when their structure is questioned. The raging debate over intelligent design is a perfect example of how science can also be blinded. Without getting into intelligent design, it is basically just a theory that attempts to blend some scientific facts within a theological framework. Sort of, replacing the Heisenberg principle of uncertainty with the 'god principle.'

The complexities of life are still not fully explained by science; that chance alone cannot explain life. The vast majority of scientists would then contend that these complexities will ultimately be discerned and the outcome will not include an intelligent designer. In science, we call this bias. AND bias, in the idealized sense, should NEVER be part of the scientific pursuit as it causes the investigator to expect evidence that would support the initial hypothesis and potentially ignore (miss, rationalize, exclude....) other evidence that could support different explanations.

The simple fact is that we do not understand life's complexity. If you decide to pursue this noble goal by science then go for it. It's a long, potentially ruinous, path that theoretically will yield the final answer. But for everyone's sake, do NOT delude yourself in thinking that you know parts of the grand answer (i.e. that god cannot be in the equation), because that would be greatest assumption of all.
Kestrel
illini319 wrote:
Bondings wrote:
illini319 wrote:
Atheism implies that you have evidence that a god does not exist.

That's not true. Atheism implies that you believe there is no god. Just like religious people believe that there is a god.


Atheists believe there is no god, implying that... god does not exist. Of course, I cannot discount those who believe in a God, but are atheistic (i.e. acknowledging that a god exists; but choosing not to believe in it).


Sure, atheism implies that there is no god. But like you said in the first place, you believe that "Atheism implies that you have evidence that a god does not exist."

We don't say we have evidence. Most of us (one of them being me) just say that there is no proof that there IS a god, so we choose to believe that there isn't one.
Ha'Vaay
Very interesting view points in this thread Very Happy I myself am a spiritualist, but I do not, however, belong to any religion. As far as creationism goes, I can't say that I subscribe to it, however the creation of the universe tends to be a very abstract concept, and its difficult to argue either way conclusively. One thing I do believe is that the Christian God exists, although I do not agree with him on many subjects (or more correctly, his followers). I also do not believe him to be the only god, or to be all-powerful.

My cent. Sorry I couldn't spare the other penny Razz
arialskye
I agree with CoolClay.

I am a Christian, and an aspiring scientist (aka still in school.) I believe that religion and science can work together very well. Provided that you relate science to religion, and religion to science.

I have a theory in the works about the Creation, Fall of man, and the decay of matter. Just for starters, what we think of as physical constants are not in fact constant. You can experimentally prove that they are slowing down. Taking the speed of light into consideration, There have been studys that suggest that the speed of light is on an exponential decline, where it is approaching a constant but never achieving it. On an exponential curve there is a point where the constant would be infinatly large, or fast. This relates back to the Bible at this point: Genesis 1:3 "And God said, Let there be light: and there was light." Meaning the light was instantanous, and then at the fall of mankind, decay had an effect on this physical constant, dropping it at an infinatly fast rate and it has slowly been approaching 3 * 10^8 ever since.

Not sure that makes any sense in words, its much easier to draw and then draw the corresponding timelines and graphs. Hope that its somewhat understandable.
illini319
Kestrel wrote:
illini319 wrote:
Bondings wrote:
illini319 wrote:
Atheism implies that you have evidence that a god does not exist.

That's not true. Atheism implies that you believe there is no god. Just like religious people believe that there is a god.


Atheists believe there is no god, implying that... god does not exist. Of course, I cannot discount those who believe in a God, but are atheistic (i.e. acknowledging that a god exists; but choosing not to believe in it).


Sure, atheism implies that there is no god. But like you said in the first place, you believe that "Atheism implies that you have evidence that a god does not exist."

We don't say we have evidence. Most of us (one of them being me) just say that there is no proof that there IS a god, so we choose to believe that there isn't one.


This is all just semantic banter. As you say, many atheists say that there is no proof that there IS a god. therefore you conclude that there isn't one. In either case, you come back to my point. And that is that you have made a premature conclusion. There is no proof that there is a god. There is no proof that there isn't a god. THERE IS NO PROOF. Therefore... the whole thing is uninterpretable. One cannot make a truly justified conclusion one way or the other because proof is lacking. If you consider yourself a rational scientist who lives and dies by empirical evidence, then the question of a higher being cannot and must not be concluded for further proof (either way) is required. Being an atheist implies that you have already made a choice (conclusion).
Reaper
quote from David_Pardy
Quote:
Kestrel - I'm sorry, but my leg growing an inch longer and my back being straightened from scolliosus does not just happen by coincidence. They were healed in an instant.


your right its not coincidence, its something called DNA that tells your cells what to do, like growing for instance. Also there is scientific proof that people can grow several inches in a night but I dont have time to look it up at the moment.

also this is a quote I found on http://www.quotationspage.com/ but I dont remember who said it.
Quote:
Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from a religious conviction.

so yeah im science in general.
David_Pardy
Nice try, Reaper.

I know what I've seen. If this wasn't God, then you would see it happening to people every single day, not just when they're prayed for. People would be able to think really hard and convince their bodies to heal themselves.

It doesn't work like that, sorry. Here's an idea: Next time you try and scrape your knee or something, try and will it to heal. It's not going to happen. If your mind can't quickly heal a bit of scraped skin, how can it develop a relatively large portion of bone and muscle within seconds?

Just for information, EVERYBODY will 'grow' a few CM every night because gravity is no longer compressing your body and it will relax and stretch. Measure your height in the morning and evening and you will see a difference every day.
nam_siddharth
What you have to do with the fact, whether GOD exist or not. GOD has nothing to do with morals or life.

You say, there is a supreme GOD, we should worship, if we want HIS favour. Is it a good system. In this case a good person will remain without support of GOD, because he do not worship GOD. On the other side a mean bad person will get favour of GOD, because he worship GOD.

Now you will say, that GOD only support good person. In this case, why should we worship GOD, if we can get his favour only by our good works?

And why you think, that GOD exist. Was there a moment, when GOd meet you and said, "Hello, I am GOD." Laughing

You believe in GOD, because bible says, there is GOD. But after all bible was written by human being. Bible says, Jesus was son God, He arised again after his death and a lot of stupid things. Do you believe in these things, and still think, that you are human?
David_Pardy
The bible was written by men, but FOR God.

I have experienced God in so many ways, and even without the things I have experienced it is so obvious that God is real just by looking at the world He created - all it takes is a look at a sunset.

The point is that ALL men are sinners. In God's eyes, we are equal in our sin because to God, ALL sin is equal. The severity of sin makes a difference only to us here on Earth as we pay the consequences of our sin on whatever level is necessary - the point is that if we sin, we're a sinner. None of us are good, although we can try to be good, we are still sinning in some form.

God knows this, and that is why we recieve salvation if we make the CHOICE to accept God's salvation. Those who truly respect God and want to please Him will do their utmost best to avoid sinning and to witness to others - this is my goal and it is the goal of many other Christians. None of us are perfect, the closer we come to God the more we realise we've fallen short of the mark. I don't consider myself better than anyone else because I follow God, but at least I know that I will be with God when I die, or when He sends Jesus to renew the Earth.
Reaper
Answer this then. If god does as you say really does exist, Has he been a good guardian and protector of our world? War, destruction of the earths natural resources are some of the things this "God" lets happen on a regular basis.
Also if all sin is equal in his eyes I guess you wouldn't care if he sends a mass murderer or adolf hitler instead of "Jesus," this also applys to the concept of heaven and hell because if he judges everyones "Sins" the same then he would send everyone to heaven or hell, but not both.
solomagos
Reaper wrote:
Answer this then. If god does as you say really does exist, Has he been a good guardian and protector of our world? War, destruction of the earths natural resources are some of the things this "God" lets happen on a regular basis.
Also if all sin is equal in his eyes I guess you wouldn't care if he sends a mass murderer or adolf hitler instead of "Jesus," this also applys to the concept of heaven and hell because if he judges everyones "Sins" the same then he would send everyone to heaven or hell, but not both.


I agree completely with you. Moreover, The bible is just a book. Christian people should dedicate to behave properly first and then, when they are the best people in the world, the most generous etc, I think it's then when they can jugde other's people behaviour.


Don't you think so??

Lena.
hive
God is a scientist with a strage sense of humor.

Razz
nam_siddharth
David_Pardy wrote:
The bible was written by men, but FOR God.

I have experienced God in so many ways, and even without the things I have experienced it is so obvious that God is real just by looking at the world He created - all it takes is a look at a sunset.

The point is that ALL men are sinners. In God's eyes, we are equal in our sin because to God, ALL sin is equal. The severity of sin makes a difference only to us here on Earth as we pay the consequences of our sin on whatever level is necessary - the point is that if we sin, we're a sinner. None of us are good, although we can try to be good, we are still sinning in some form.

God knows this, and that is why we recieve salvation if we make the CHOICE to accept God's salvation. Those who truly respect God and want to please Him will do their utmost best to avoid sinning and to witness to others - this is my goal and it is the goal of many other Christians. None of us are perfect, the closer we come to God the more we realise we've fallen short of the mark. I don't consider myself better than anyone else because I follow God, but at least I know that I will be with God when I die, or when He sends Jesus to renew the Earth.


You mean, there is no meaning of morals. You will be supported by GOD, if you worship him. It does not matter for GOD, if you are mass killer like Hitler or Laden. If it is the truth, then Hitler and Laden has protected their seats in heaven, because they have killed people for there religion.
Kestrel
nam_siddharth wrote:
David_Pardy wrote:
The bible was written by men, but FOR God.

I have experienced God in so many ways, and even without the things I have experienced it is so obvious that God is real just by looking at the world He created - all it takes is a look at a sunset.

The point is that ALL men are sinners. In God's eyes, we are equal in our sin because to God, ALL sin is equal. The severity of sin makes a difference only to us here on Earth as we pay the consequences of our sin on whatever level is necessary - the point is that if we sin, we're a sinner. None of us are good, although we can try to be good, we are still sinning in some form.

God knows this, and that is why we recieve salvation if we make the CHOICE to accept God's salvation. Those who truly respect God and want to please Him will do their utmost best to avoid sinning and to witness to others - this is my goal and it is the goal of many other Christians. None of us are perfect, the closer we come to God the more we realise we've fallen short of the mark. I don't consider myself better than anyone else because I follow God, but at least I know that I will be with God when I die, or when He sends Jesus to renew the Earth.


You mean, there is no meaning of morals. You will be supported by GOD, if you worship him. It does not matter for GOD, if you are mass killer like Hitler or Laden. If it is the truth, then Hitler and Laden has protected their seats in heaven, because they have killed people for there religion.


Hitler didn't kill for his religion. He was trying to exterminate the Jews and make a perfect race.
ImChasingSafety
I think that this will be a never ending question. I dont think there is anyway to prove eather idea. Personaly though.. I belive in evolution, based on the scientific facts and that fact that im not a religious man..



Rolling Eyes Aaron
prezes87
I think that we all belong to God. He's the greatest men(?) or spirit Very Happy in the world and decisions are depend on his mood Smile
raver
illini319 wrote:
I cannot discount those who believe in a God, but are atheistic (i.e. acknowledging that a god exists; but choosing not to believe in it).


A person that acknoledges that there is a god but prefers not to think about it is called an AGNOSTIC. Either way there is no RIGHt answer to god or science...just my two cents
Arnie
PatTheGreat42 wrote:
You should always put science before religion, because you can build upon science. You can't build anything useful upon religion. And science can answer EVERYTHING. You just have to think hard enough.
This is simply your confession of faith in science. (See my last posting.) Apparently you put science above religion, and that's your choice. But your choice doesn't apply to everyone. There are people that can build upon religion. There are people that think religion can answer EVERYTHING.

Non-believers often accuse believers of forcing their opinion upon others. The impression I get is that it's often vice-versa. The beliefs of science is glorified everywhere - and people that don't believe in its supremacy are called nuts. Now how is that respectful then?
Kestrel
raver wrote:
illini319 wrote:
I cannot discount those who believe in a God, but are atheistic (i.e. acknowledging that a god exists; but choosing not to believe in it).


A person that acknoledges that there is a god but prefers not to think about it is called an AGNOSTIC. Either way there is no RIGHt answer to god or science...just my two cents


No, no, no... an agnostic thinks that it is impossible to know if there is a god.

Here - For future reference to all included in the discussion:

Christian: Professing belief in Jesus as Christ or following the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus.

Atheist: One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God.

Agnostic: One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.

Anything else... well, you can look it up. These are the three most common terms used to describe someone's beliefs, though, when it comes to religion.
Bondings
Arnie wrote:
Non-believers often accuse believers of forcing their opinion upon others. The impression I get is that it's often vice-versa. The beliefs of science is glorified everywhere - and people that don't believe in its supremacy are called nuts. Now how is that respectful then?

First of all, science is not a religion. A religion is a belief. Science is an ever-changing guess based on facts trying to explain everything.
Quote:
There are people that think religion can answer EVERYTHING.

Can you build an aircraft based on religion and make it fly? Can you explain gravity with religion? Can you find the speed of light with religion? Can you build a computer with religion?

I suppose the answer is a big no.

If not, go to the top of the highest building in your town. Then pray for god to let you fly. You'll either start flying (religion) or experiencing gravity (science). (WARNING: this is a joke, don't try this at home!)

I really don't understand why people put religion vs science.
-Religion is a belief and should be used to explain religious things like god, heaven, hell and moral values. There is no possible way to explain moral values with science.
-Science is a guess to explain reality and should be used for scientific things like biology, history, chemistry, geography, physics and all other technologic/scientific things. There is no way to explain physics or biology with religion.
S3nd K3ys
Bondings wrote:

If not, go to the top of the highest building in your town. Then pray for god to let you fly. You'll either start flying (religion) or experiencing gravity (science). (WARNING: this is a joke, don't try this at home!)




That's ef'n beautiful!
ocalhoun
"It is written, thou shalt not test the Lord thy God"
Sound familiar?
Probably not, I don't guess anybody reads the book I'm quoting.
illini319
raver wrote:
illini319 wrote:
I cannot discount those who believe in a God, but are atheistic (i.e. acknowledging that a god exists; but choosing not to believe in it).


A person that acknoledges that there is a god but prefers not to think about it is called an AGNOSTIC. Either way there is no RIGHt answer to god or science...just my two cents


Get your definitions straight...
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=agnostic
An agnostic, which I particularly feel represents me, remains skeptical about the existence of god, BUT prefers not to outright conclude one way or the other. you can call that non-commital. or you can call that pure scientist. either way... it's not the definition which you ascribe to agnostic.
illini319
Kestrel wrote:
raver wrote:
illini319 wrote:
I cannot discount those who believe in a God, but are atheistic (i.e. acknowledging that a god exists; but choosing not to believe in it).


A person that acknoledges that there is a god but prefers not to think about it is called an AGNOSTIC. Either way there is no RIGHt answer to god or science...just my two cents


No, no, no... an agnostic thinks that it is impossible to know if there is a god.

Here - For future reference to all included in the discussion:

Christian: Professing belief in Jesus as Christ or following the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus.

Atheist: One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God.

Agnostic: One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.

Anything else... well, you can look it up. These are the three most common terms used to describe someone's beliefs, though, when it comes to religion.


thanks for straightening that out to the non-cognoscenti
naz
Many years ago, people saw a thunder and thought this was a wonder. They thought there was some mighty power Behind this and the called it GOD. They proceeded the same way with every 'wonder' they coudn't understand and so formed many Gods. With the evolution of science and in general the understanding of the world people started not to believe in these Gods ,but one was enought to 'explain' these wonders.
So think what will happen when the science get's to a higher level....
maybe so bad people will say, we won't need any God to explain these simple things because we know that they're no wonders but under some certain rules...

I'm not an atheist, i'm a agnostic, but I haven't seen something that is a REAL prove that there's god maybe i'll know it when I die, but in my life I DON'T NEED A GOD and there's no reason to worship somethin 'worthless' for me.


So is Science something very importat for as and ,yes, I choose Science !
David_Pardy
Reaper - There are morals - right and wrong. As I said the consequences of our actions are determined on earth by how wrong we determine each sin to be. Either way, if you regularly sin, you're still doing the wrong thing whether it's stealing from people or murdering people. If you sin on earth, then you pay the consequences when you are caught. If Bin Laden honestly repents before he dies and sticks by that belief then yes, he will go to Heaven. If he were to make such a repentance then it is likely he will give himself in and face the consequences of his actions.

Hitler is the same, but he never repented of his sins. Saddam still has that chance.

One thing that you might just to need is that these men's actions were for THEMSELVES. Hitler - as has been mentioned - hated the Jews, and wanted to create the 'perfect' race. Keep in mind that if it were not for the theory of Evolution, Hitler would not have had motive for believing that white + blonde hair + blue eyes = perfect human being.

Something people don't understand is that NO war has been declared by God. All wars in the modern history of man were declared by men for their own gain. Contrary to popular belief, the most costly wars in modern times were POLITICAL wars, with the exception of the Taiping Rebellion. The Taiping Rebellion was caused by a man who claimed to be the brother of Jesus - he used political unrest as a catapult to start the rebellion which ended up being more costly than WWI, although less costly than WWII
David_Pardy
That's exactly what I would have quoted, Ocalhoun.

Science is incredibly important to our society. Science is real and it is all around us - because it is the STUDY of our world. Science is a study, religion is believing in something. If anything, thanks to scientists who DON'T have a Evolutionary bias (which most of the best scientists don't), there is much evidence AGAINST things like radiocarbon dating, etc.
nam_siddharth
When Ananthapindika, a wealthy young man met the Buddha at the bamboo groove at Rajagriha, the Buddha spoke to him clearly about his views on the existence of God and the real cause behind the creation of beings in this world. These views of the Buddha are summarized in the following manner:

1. If God is the maker of all living things, then they all should have to submit to His power silently. They have to be like the vessels produced by the potter, without any individuality of their own. If that is so, how can they all practice virtue?

2. If this world is indeed created by God, then there should be no such thing as sorrow or calamity or evil, for all the pure and impure deeds must come from Him.

3. If that is not the case then there must be some other cause besides God which is behind Him, in which case He would not be self-existent.

4. It is not convincing that the Absolute has created us, because that which is absolute cannot be a cause. All things here arise from different causes. Then can we can say that the Absolute is the cause of all things alike? If the Absolute is pervading them, then certainly It is not their creator.

5. If we consider the Self as the maker, why did it not make things pleasant? Why and how should it create so much sorrow and suffering for itself?

6. It is neither God nor the self nor some causeless chance which creates us. It is our our deeds which produce both good and bad results according to the law of causation.

7. We should therefore "abandon the heresy of worshipping God and of praying to him. We should stops all speculation and vain talk about such matters and practice good so that good may result from our good deeds.

http://hinduwebsite.com/buddhism/buddhaongod.htm

Dhammapada wrote:
All that we are is the result of what we have thought: it is founded on our thoughts, it is made up of our thoughts. If a man speaks or acts with an evil thought, pain follows him, as the wheel follows the foot of the ox that draws the carriage.

All that we are is the result of what we have thought: it is founded on our thoughts, it is made up of our thoughts. If a man speaks or acts with a pure thought, happiness follows him, like a shadow that never leaves him.

He abused me, he beat me, he defeated me, he robbed me,"--in those who harbour such thoughts hatred will never cease.

For hatred does not cease by hatred at any time: hatred ceases by love, this is an old rule.
dragonflame
Id rather live in a world that believe there is a god than one who believes there isnt. The rest is elementary.
Bondings
David_Pardy wrote:
Evolutionary bias (which most of the best scientists don't), there is much evidence AGAINST things like radiocarbon dating, etc.

Carbon dating might not be very exact but it DOES work. It's a proven effect that can be demonstrated in laboratries. It's just a radioactive reaction just slightly different from what happens in a nuclear reactor and way slower. Didn't you learn about carbon dating in school? http://science.howstuffworks.com/carbon-14.htm

If you don't believe it, then just look at light. You do believe in the speed of light? How come that you can see the light from stars at a distance of millions if not billions of lightyears far?

Quote:
"It is written, thou shalt not test the Lord thy God"

The same excuse never worked for my own exams.
nam_siddharth
The question, whether GOD, exist or not is not new, specially for India.

Please read the following quote:

http://hinduwebsite.com/buddhism/buddhaongod.htm wrote:
When Ananthapindika, a wealthy young man met the Buddha at the bamboo groove at Rajagriha, the Buddha spoke to him clearly about his views on the existence of God and the real cause behind the creation of beings in this world. These views of the Buddha are summarized in the following manner:

1. If God is the maker of all living things, then they all should have to submit to His power silently. They have to be like the vessels produced by the potter, without any individuality of their own. If that is so, how can they all practice virtue?

2. If this world is indeed created by God, then there should be no such thing as sorrow or calamity or evil, for all the pure and impure deeds must come from Him.

3. If that is not the case then there must be some other cause besides God which is behind Him, in which case He would not be self-existent.

4. It is not convincing that the Absolute has created us, because that which is absolute cannot be a cause. All things here arise from different causes. Then can we can say that the Absolute is the cause of all things alike? If the Absolute is pervading them, then certainly It is not their creator.

5. If we consider the Self as the maker, why did it not make things pleasant? Why and how should it create so much sorrow and suffering for itself?

6. It is neither God nor the self nor some causeless chance which creates us. It is our our deeds which produce both good and bad results according to the law of causation.

7. We should therefore "abandon the heresy of worshipping God and of praying to him. We should stops all speculation and vain talk about such matters and practice good so that good may result from our good deeds.



Dhammapada:
All that we are is the result of what we have thought: it is founded on our thoughts, it is made up of our thoughts. If a man speaks or acts with an evil thought, pain follows him, as the wheel follows the foot of the ox that draws the carriage.

All that we are is the result of what we have thought: it is founded on our thoughts, it is made up of our thoughts. If a man speaks or acts with a pure thought, happiness follows him, like a shadow that never leaves him.

He abused me, he beat me, he defeated me, he robbed me,"--in those who harbour such thoughts hatred will never cease.

For hatred does not cease by hatred at any time: hatred ceases by love, this is an old rule.
Arnie
Bondings wrote:
First of all, science is not a religion. A religion is a belief. Science is an ever-changing guess based on facts trying to explain everything.
You're just defining science. What I meant is that some people trust completely in science. It can solve everything, they believe in its power. Other people believe in the power of God. Both are beliefs. This is crucial when science and religion contradict eachother.

Bondings wrote:
Quote:
There are people that think religion can answer EVERYTHING.

Can you build an aircraft based on religion and make it fly? Can you explain gravity with religion? Can you find the speed of light with religion? Can you build a computer with religion?
Just as I've done before I will mirror your question.
Arnie wrote:
The point is though, scientifical laws and regulations don't have to be the judging standard. That's why demanding a scientific proof of religion is exactly like (see it as a mirror) demanding a religious proof of science.
So let's mirror this one: can science save your soul? That's what a believer would ask. I suppose the answer is a big no as well.
David_Pardy
Bondings, I know EXACTLY how carbon dating works.

What you HAVEN'T been told is described in this article:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/carbon_dating.asp
David_Pardy
Nam, the bible clearly states that the reason there is pain and suffering in the world is because man chose to disobey God, thereby separating from God and that is when the world fell.
Reaper
what nam_siddharth says is very true, and as for using the bible for a referance David_pardy. Well I'm pretty sure that hearing the voice of "God" Keep in mind that he was one of the few men who actually heard god,and then relaying it to his/her people cannot exacly be called normal, and if this guy existed today he would probably be locked up with all the other insane people, strait jackets and all because hearing voices cannot be a good sign.... well if I walked into a hospital today and started yelling god told me to come here today and tell you about all these wonders that he can deliver, i'm pretty sure they would think im insane or something.
Xipha
Well, no matter what people will always be able to look at any evidence and use it to justify what they want to believe... thats why proving whether God or evolution, or any other religion is true is impossible. All of these require some faith. (And evolution is just as much of a religion as anything else, because for every "fact" that scientists claim prove evolution, there is some other fact that contradicts it. And noone was there in the beginning to see how things began so there is no way to prove anything)

Here is three things that you must believe in order to believe that evolution is true:

1) something came from nothing (because however early you go you always have to ask well where did that come from and eventually you run out of answers and have to conclude that it came from nowhere)

2) something living can come from something nonliving (and no matter how hard intelligent scientists try they cannot turn something nonliving into something living, even if they have all the right components for life right there. So how some toxic sludge could produce something living on its own I don't see) This brings me to my last point:

3) Chance can outdo intelligence (You look at all the complex things in our world: the leaves on a tree, tiny mciro organisms, giant mammals, all ranges of sea creatures, the human brain which we cannot understand even though we all have and use one. Look at the systems, how organisms interdepend on one another and some can't even survive without the others. Look at all these amazing things and scientists try and tell us that chance and a bunch of toxic sludge created them? Well I'm sorry, but its much easier for me to see an intelligent being creating all of these things)

And all this is without going into specific examples of creatures that defy evolution (google the subject if you want to find theses examples)

This is why I choose to believe that there is an intelligent God that created all things. But like I said everything takes a bit of faith. I cannot prove that he exists, because people will always choose to see things in other ways, and place their faith in other places. But I place mine in God.

P.S My reply to nam_siddharth: A Christian perspective

1. God gave us free will to choose whether to submit to him or not

2.There was no such thing as pain or suffering unil we chose not to follow God.

3. There is a being that evil comes from, Satan, who also had the free will whether or not to follow his creator. He chose the path of evil and when he tempted Adam and Eve into not following God as well, he gained a hold on the earth.

4. If by the absolute he means God, God exists outside of time and space, he created time and space, and this world, and because he is intelligent and all-powerful, he certainly has the means to cause the entire system of the universe to come into existence, along with the laws that govern it.

5. How could anything create itself?

6. Yes our deeds have an affect on our future, and whether it is happy or not, but not all things are within our personal control (why do some evil people seem to prosper? (The Bible has an answer to this, look it up)) It is one choice which decides our final fate, the choice to accept or reject God. How can our deeds create us if we must first exist to do these deeds?

7. I will continue to worship God and pray to God, becuase if his will is done this world has a chance. But if the human race really does have all the control over the fate of the world through our deeds and thoughts we are royally screwed. I have yet to meet a perfect person. And the evil in this world doesn't seem to be balanced out by the good. And I will try to do the will of God even though I am not perfect, and sometimes will fail, because God's will is good

If you want a more intelligent and educated opinion on these things than mine, I suggest reading anything by C.S Lewis, especially the space Trilogy, and the Screwtape Letters, he had a lot better understanding of things than I do. Even if you have the opposite stance in this debate, I suggest you read them, maybe it will make you think of some things you havn't before, and give some new aspects to the debate.
tidruG
merged the two threads on the same topic...
"science vs religion"
nam_siddharth
thanx tidruG

I had to post same things on two places. I was creating problem for us
nam_siddharth
Xipha wrote:
5. How could anything create itself?


Then who created GOD?
Xipha
He is outside of time or space. One of the fundamental things is that he is eternal, and has no beginning or end, and therefore does not have to have a creator. There is pretty much two choices when you go back to he beginning. Either God is eternal and exists and said let there be light. Or the universe just popped out of nowhere. Becuase everything inside of space or time is finite, and therefore must have a beginning and an end. Because God is outside of space and time (he created space and time) he is infinite.
Kestrel
illini319 wrote:
thanks for straightening that out to the non-cognoscenti


Well, it was kind of getting on my nerves having all of these people talking about different religions yet not knowing what the hell they're talking about, or what they are. And I'm sure others like you and I were starting to get a bit frustrated with this.
Xipha
I may not be the most expert person ever, but I have done a bit of reading and research. I enjoy debates like this. I t sounds like a theres a few people in here that have some good points. Smile
Borse
Science is man trying to understand his world and explain it. How is this related to Religion? This is like comparing apples and highways! Why can't God use or create stuff using scientific principles? Evolution could just have been his method for creating man and fitting him to this world. Also there are Many things that science cannot explain yet. Huge areas of knowledge are still out there to be learned. What God would NOT want us to explore and learn and grow? Couldn't God just be a Really REALLY Advanced Scientist? Arthur C. Clark wrote "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" Lots of the things that we do now would be Miracles in the Medival world. Does that make them religion?
Bondings
David_Pardy wrote:
Bondings, I know EXACTLY how carbon dating works.

What you HAVEN'T been told is described in this article:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/carbon_dating.asp

So your one and only source of information about reality and this world is the bible? I completely don't understand how you can consider a site called Answers In Genesis, as a scientific site with scientific evidence.

Also carbon dating isn't the only way to measure how old the earth and the universe is.
NightsCuriosity
I dont believe in the whole....religion thing. It just doesnt make sense to me of how this "higher power" could do everything. But, Ill admit, I am agnostic. If I die, and I get see that there is a "higher power", then im a believer. Untill then, Im just skeptical of the whole idea.

Dan
Reaper
umm no the universe didn't exacly just appear, some new infomation suggests that what makes up most of the universe, and helped form all the galaxies and things like that is a substance known as dark matter. This substance cant really be seen, just like you cant see a black hole just by looking at it. But its hard to prove this material exists because the only thing it exerts that we are currently capable of detecting is gravity, which all galaxies and solar systems need to form.

quote by Xipha
Quote:
I may not be the most expert person ever, but I have done a bit of reading and research. I enjoy debates like this. I t sounds like a theres a few people in here that have some good points.


yes alot of people here have very good points on both the religion sides and evolution sides Smile
Ressurrector
blackstripes wrote:
how bout a topic that a lot of ppl can relate to? did "God" really create the earth? or was is just a form of evolution from super nova? was adam and eve who were really the first humans? or were we monkeys to begin with that evolved to a human state? ok... so sum facts could be false both on science and religion... i mean, wut it seems to me... ppl believe in religion just by reading the bible... but then again, the bible is just a book. ppl could possibly just be reading sum stories made by a fictional writer in the past. or maybe not. science does give in a lot of facts, but then they are pretty hard to understand them... for example.... err..... like a goldfish! scientists say that the goldfish has a bad memory... but how the hell would they know that? they cant speak to a fish!! or even know wut runs in their minds. okay... so the goldfish isnt really a good example on how the world is created... but still, it does give a point that scientist sumtmes dont really know anything. so in everyone's opinion... wut do u think it is? was it a "God" that created the world and all of mankind? or was it evolution?


I feel what your saying totally. People easily defend the bible till their death and in all practical value its just another book. Just another story. Excalibur and Frankenstein are great stories too but we don't kill each other over them. The only leg religioun has to stand on IMO is the fact we can't currently go back farther then the big bang. Yet some argue the big bang is just one shot from of our vantage point in time and the universe has always been there constantly moving in a precise gear like fashion. All I know is. If I if I light a match and hold my hand over it I get burned and thats real and its present day. Know one alive today can even account for any of the bible stuff that supposedly happened. Course another wild theory I have is enough people believed God existed then somehow through collective thought and psychic energy a virtual god could exist that might explain rare instances of miracles and what not. This also applies to Satan. Its all too much to think or care about really.
whplace
We can never prove that!!!!

lol..... we should die to know........

Just live your life happily and forget abt these things Razz
benwhite
Yeah, hate to burst the collective skeptical bubble...but:

1. Most scientists do believe in evolution. There are plenty that don't. Ones that don't typically ascribe to evolution with the creator as a first step--this is an adaptation of creationism using the idea of "irreducible complexity." The idea is that if something exists that has no functional precursors, then it could not have evolved and thus God made it. While this may true, the logic behind that neglects the effects of random mutation as a mechanism for genetic change. Anyway, the moral of the story is---most scientists, especially biologists, agree that evolution is the best model we have for explaining biological diversity and development on this planet. Rare is the scientist who believes the world was created directly as stated in the bible.

2. radiocarbon dating has nothing to do with how we measure anything more than a few thousand years old. The universe's age is also measured by the laws of physics. Unless God placed the proof to fool unbelievers, the world is as old as has been shown, as is our solar system, the universe, and the first caveman, etc. Using a creatism website to confound the utility of carbon dating isn't exactly going to convince anyone not in your camp. If its credible science with a point, it gets published in a real scientific journal, like Nature, not on the local church's website.

In case you wondering, care of wikipedia:

Quote:
The uranium-lead radiometric dating scheme is one of the oldest available, as well as one of the most highly respected. It has been refined to the point that the error in dates of rocks about three billion years old is no more than two million years.

Uranium-lead dating is best performed on the mineral "zircon" (ZrSiO4), though it can be used on other materials. Zircon incorporates uranium atoms into its crystalline structure as substitutes for zirconium, but strongly rejects lead. It has a very high blocking temperature, and is very chemically inert.

One of its great advantages is that any sample provides two clocks, one based on uranium-235's decay to lead-207 with a half-life of about 700 million years, and one based on uranium-238's decay to lead-206 with a half-life of about 4.5 billion years, providing a built-in crosscheck that allows accurate determination of the age of the sample even if some of the lead has been lost.


Yee-haw. There's nothing wrong with religion, but it's really hard to knock things that make inuitive sense. There is physical proof for the age of the universe and for evolution. That doesn't mean God isn't involved, but it does mean trying to fight science with science is very hard. [/quote]
haomen
i think this issue can not be simply conclule as a confliction or relation between science and religion. let see something more generally, they can be concluded as the relation between science and human life. religion, moral, civilization are what was accelated in our lives, from the acient time till now. yet science are some rules alway existed in the world.

i didnt believe in God. because of my education in China, you know, Chinese government didnt educate any religious courses to children and teenagers. when i grow up, i read books and papers in philosophy and religion. Honestly, they are very interesting and persuasive. Yet in my sight, i dont believe in god, but i will show my respect to religious things, because i dont think i am qualified to justify if religious things are right or wrong, i will try to reading things in this field.
Bondings
Arnie wrote:
The point is though, scientifical laws and regulations don't have to be the judging standard. That's why demanding a scientific proof of religion is exactly like (see it as a mirror) demanding a religious proof of science. So let's mirror this one: can science save your soul? That's what a believer would ask. I suppose the answer is a big no as well.

I forgot to react on this post.

Arnie, I completely agree. Science has nothing to do with morality, god and religion. Science can save your life, but not your soul. There is and shouldn't be a conflict between science and religion.
Arnie
Bondings wrote:
David_Pardy wrote:
Bondings, I know EXACTLY how carbon dating works.

What you HAVEN'T been told is described in this article:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/carbon_dating.asp

So your one and only source of information about reality and this world is the bible? I completely don't understand how you can consider a site called Answers In Genesis, as a scientific site with scientific evidence.

Also carbon dating isn't the only way to measure how old the earth and the universe is.
You're judging the site by its name and not by its content. That's like I'd say "how can you consider somebody nicknamed x reasonable?"
benwhite
I think he was pointing at the likelihood for bias given the name. The site disregards the consensus with other radiometric dating methods, saying that they're based on assumption and not on scientific fact. That is an excuse and is simply not true. For example, if you look at the post above, Uranium-lead dating is extremely powerful and has a built-in error mechanism. No serious scientist would ever used Carbon dating on an old sample and proclaim the results as fact. The age of world and solar system was not done by carbon dating.

It instead focuses on carbon dates over 6000 years, which even scientists know are unreliable because the isotope ratio is too small to measure accurately. Scientists understand how difficult it is too measure time well, that's why any consensus by the community does not rely on a single measurement. Anything you've read as an established fact has been verified over and over again. There doesn't need to be that kind of conflict unless people refuse to read the bible allegorically. But one is not going to discredit science using science very easily. This article does not do it.
Bondings
Arnie wrote:
You're judging the site by its name and not by its content. That's like I'd say "how can you consider somebody nicknamed x reasonable?"

First of all, I do know that website. Secondly, it was exactly like benwhite said:
Quote:
I think he was pointing at the likelihood for bias given the name.

That website is based on (and adjusted to) the bible instead of on reality.
Arnie
You didn't show that you knew the site. You just made an empty statement about the name.

Secondly, you're clearly stating the Bible isn't reality. Let's mirror it: that's like a Christian would say (human-performed) science isn't reality.

I don't know the website, I don't know the scientifical ways of whatever-dating. I've never studied any of those things. But what I do see in your replies is a big prejudice. The site is identifying itself with the Bible and thus it's already biased in your eyes. Stamped with a big, red "condemded by the all-knowing science".
Ohsakm
it was a supernova, but all people who has read somethnig about God, and belive in him, kows that God exist. but the world of the religion is very rare.

at the present time science answers to many things, but other no.

I have read some months ago, that when the present Pope (Benedicto....) dies, according to a translation of a fragment of somebody, the aim would arrive from the world.

i think that it isn´t true, but that person has guessed right in others things.

so i thing we can wait to see what happend...... Twisted Evil
Reaper
Ohsakm wrote:
it was a supernova, but all people who has read somethnig about God, and belive in him, kows that God exist. but the world of the religion is very rare.

at the present time science answers to many things, but other no.

I have read some months ago, that when the present Pope (Benedicto....) dies, according to a translation of a fragment of somebody, the aim would arrive from the world.

i think that it isn´t true, but that person has guessed right in others things.

so i thing we can wait to see what happend...... Twisted Evil


Umm well yes of course he's going to die, everyone does even if your the pope. And if this person picked the exact date the pope was going to die dont you think he might know this because hes the one thats going to kill the pope?
Ohsakm
that person (i can`t remenber his name was a prophet who lived in 1200 more or less, and he said that after his die, when the pope number 112 die de sky will be red, and rome will be in blood......

well, Juan Pablo II was the pope number 111 after his death, and Benedicto XVI (i think is XVI, i don't remember) is the 112.
Reaper
eh well There goes my assassination theory lol... but my other one still stands that all people eventually die of old age. And as for red skys and a bloody rome? well lucky for me I dont live in rome so no worrys Smile
XSTG
Science created us. God created science. God created science to create us to ask ourselves this question.
Xipha
Science is just coming up with explanations for observations. And there is always more than one way to look at facts. Even the observation that the universe exists can be looked at in more than one way. The scientist who does not believe in creation would say "The universe exists, it can be explained by a big bang, which was caused by supercondensed matter, which may have come from some dark matter/ other universe(multiverse theory)/ who knows where, which may have come form..... and so on. And eventually runs out of places where it may have come from." The scientist who believes in creation would say "The universe exists, it can be explained by God saying 'Let there be light' and then let there be planets' and so on, and they came into existance" All we can really observe is the fact that the universe exists. Scientists have observed waves of energy that are very faint that are everywhere throughout the universe. Scientists who do not believe in creation say "This proves the big bang", Either way the only thing this proves is that the universe came into existence very suddenly. (Which both creationists and evolutionists believe) They just interpret the same data in different ways. As well because we cannot actually go back and observe the beginnings of the universe, science is not very objective when doing research in this field. Scientists go into an experiment with preconcieved notions about the results they should get, and therefore they find ways to interpre the data to agree with what they already think (even going as far as throwing out data that does not agree with the expected results). There is not a lot of consistency when looking at the origins of the universe. If you look at carbon dating, or Uranium-lead dating it gives ou one set of information which is not always reliable. Even some anticreationist scientists have admitted that when using uranium-lead dating you often get answers ranging from zero to millions of years old. When some rock samples dated as "billions" of years old were sent to an expert to be dated using uranium-helium methods the dates were consistently found to be several thousand years old.

Some other questions scientists (whether they are creationists or not) should look at to get a wider range of dating mehods rather than relying on one method alone are:
What does measuring the chemicals in the ocean tell us about the age of the earth?
What does measuring the total volume of the continents and the rate of sediment erosion tell us about the age of the earth?
What does the amount of helium in the atmosphere tell us about the age of the earth?
What does the rate of decline in the earth’s magnetic field tell us about the age of the earth?

Some articles with answers: (And I seriously suggest reading them if you are at all interested in this debate, and are not too biased to acknowledge the source. I would be extremely interested to hear your defense against these articles, other than bashing the source)

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v18/i1/earth.asp

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v21/i1/seas.asp (note that experimental data was taken from secular data (that means non christian) for the calculations in this article, and in several of the others)

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v22/i2/ages.asp

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/486.asp

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i3/old_earth.asp

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i2/magnetic.asp


And by the way answers in genesis is an organization which has credited and well known scientists working for it. Not all scientists are anti-creationist, and just because they believe in creation does not mean they are providing false data. They are simply looking at the data from a different viewpoint.

Another quick point on a slightly different topic. Evolution. While it is true that species adapt (natural selection allows the stronger, or more defended specimens to survive, norrowing down the gene pool) there has never been an observed case of new genetic data being created. Which is the fundamental principle of evolution. Sure theres mutations (and most of these involve the death or inability to reproduce of the creature involved) but these all involve the loss of genetic data. Cancer is a genetic mutation, and it sure doesn't do anyone any good. Sure thers scientists speculating that because these creatures look similar or have 99% the same DNA they must have been the same species at one point. But lets just speculate for a minute that God did create the universe, and is an intelligent being with a plan. Wouldn't it make sense to give creatures the same basic form and DNA (just like buildings need to have the same basic structure in order to stay standing) as building blocks because thats what works the best?

Also, if evolution was true, thisngs should be getting better and better because the best survives and the rest passes away. Things should be getting more organized all by themselves. But look around. You see more diseases (sure we have more cures and can fix more of them but in general people live with more diseases than ever), more natural disasters. Things are becoming overall more chaotic. The laws of Entropy (which are accepted as fact by scientists) state that everything in the universe naturally wants to go to a state of more and more disorder. (Look in any high school chemistry text for a word for word definition) Does this sound like the sort of universe that would allow evolution (going form a state of lower order to higher is the basic principle of evolution) or more like one that is falling to pieces? Now if you look at creation. Everything was created perfect. It was meant to last forever. Then Adam and Eve screwed up royally and God tells them "Ok, you guys have betrayed me, now death, chaos, disease, war, disaster and decay are going to enter the world. But I love you anyways, so I will give you a way out of all of this if you will repent and follow me again." (that way was Jesus) So the world isn't perfect anymore, and is crumbling around us, ging to a state of more disorder from that which it began. Makes sense when you look at the laws of Entropy.

Now is your turn. Since this is a debate, I would really like to hear some intelligent answers to the arguments I have given above. (I know Its a lot to read, but if you are really serious about this debate please read it. I would honestly like to hear your replies, hearing both sides (besides being the point of a debate) often helps bring up new issues and clarify old ones)
XSTG
Well now you take it too hard. Calm down. This is maybe a debate, but there's no need to be harsh against people that answered in this post. A good debater knows when to stop and when to hit to do much dammage, not chocking all the others with his oppinion. Relatively to your post, I have not read your sources, there are too much. *grins* On this point I say you have searched a lot.

Being a bit more explanatory on my first post, I think that God is a pure imagination of our brain.... or maybe God invented our brain to think he is an imagination of it... like I said, if God created Science, Science created God, am I wrong there?

Conclusion: If it is Science, then who or what created science.

If it is Religion, who or what created God.


-XSTG
doug hines
mike4652 wrote:
Quote:
darwins theory

This says it all THEORY! A theory is something not proven yet!
Charles him self said that evolution was a theory. And there is no physical prof. All living creatures re-produce after thier kind. nothing is half of one kind and half of another. Nothing was created by chance! All living things on earth serve a purpose. Even salt water helps keep the earth warm. that in it self proves design. Wink


Actually, you take the his words out of context like many people do. Darwin stated it was a theory, yes. However, he lived over a 120 years ago. Science has advanced quite a bit since then. We do now have proof of evolution. Dinosaurs and those that came before dinosaurs. We can trace back "origins" (not the right word im looking for) of birds to dinosaurs. Plants evolved. Animals evolved.

If you subscribe to evolution, then yes, everything was created by chance. That is what evolution is. Salt water does not keep the earth warm. The O-zone layer does that. And the ozone didn't come about until ocean dwellers and early plantlife came about and started the oxygen cycle.

The simple fact is: people don't know. So people will continue to believe what they will; science or religion.
David_Pardy
Actually, there is no proof of Evolution. Radiometric dating has been PROVEN to be flawed. Carbon dating is flawed. FRESH dinosaur bones have been found, and so have partially fresh bones - some with red blood cells still inside. There is no proof of Evolution at all. There are fossils of extinct animals, of extinct apes.

There are also two things which completely cancel out the possibility of Evolution occurring:

DNA

and

Chromosomes.

Flaws in and damaged DNA cause cancer.

Downs Syndrome is caused by being born with an extra chromosome.

THIS STUFF IS TAUGHT IN HIGH SCHOOL!!!

Downs Syndrome people CAN NOT reproduce successfully! Cancer is NOT a beneficial change!

Evolution is a lie and there are far too many people who believe in it. Look at the REAL science - the science which ISN'T biased towards Evolution and you will see an infinite number of holes open up in the theory.
Bondings
David_Pardy wrote:
Flaws in and damaged DNA cause cancer.

1) Not all changes cause cancer.
2) Not all cancers are caused by flaws in the DNA.
3) All sudden big changes have a very high chance to be lethal. Such changes only occure during hundreds if not thousands of generations.
Quote:
Downs Syndrome is caused by being born with an extra chromosome.

1) Yes, that's true. It's like putting a third wheel on a bycicle in the wrong direction.
2) A third chromosome is always lethal for animals. (not plants)
Quote:
Downs Syndrome people CAN NOT reproduce successfully! Cancer is NOT a beneficial change!

1) Who said all changes and diseases are beneficial? Most big changes are lethal. And cancer is not only caused by bad DNA, but also partly or completely by the environment like food, pollution and radiation.
Quote:
FRESH dinosaur bones have been found

Where? And please don't give me an url wich mentions the bible, genesis or objective ministries.
menhao
excellent!
i do think we should show enough respect to both sides, one can not order others to obey his rules, we need to talk and communicate equally, more, we need to list the examples and quotes in real, not in imaginationi.
Xipha
Ok, I'll admit I was was a bit harsh in my last post. I apologize. i will try and keep it toned down (and shorter lol). I still stand by the concepts in my posts though.

Quote:
Being a bit more explanatory on my first post, I think that God is a pure imagination of our brain.... or maybe God invented our brain to think he is an imagination of it... like I said, if God created Science, Science created God, am I wrong there?

Conclusion: If it is Science, then who or what created science.

If it is Religion, who or what created God.


This is like asking what came first the chicken or the egg. Except that God has no need of science or anything else to create him. Science cannot create anything. It is merely looking at things that are observed and from those observations trying to explain the laws and principles that govern the universe, and why it exists in the first place. In fact its pretty hard to debate between science and religion strictly, because there is science that supports religion. So the debate is closer to science supporting evolution vs. science supporting religion. Its all in the interpretation of the data.

Quote:
Actually, you take the his words out of context like many people do. Darwin stated it was a theory, yes. However, he lived over a 120 years ago. Science has advanced quite a bit since then. We do now have proof of evolution. Dinosaurs and those that came before dinosaurs. We can trace back "origins" (not the right word im looking for) of birds to dinosaurs. Plants evolved. Animals evolved


This is not entirely true. There is a lot of speculation no physical proof. (If you have found a source where they clearly state that they have found absolute proof, let me know I would like to read it) The fact is if evolution happened, it should still be happening and therefore should be observable. But like I said before there has never been an observed case of genetic data being added to the gene pool (only lost). And scientists have never succeeded in creating life even when they have all the building blocks right there. If there is no observation there is no proof, only speculation.

There is no way to prove beyond a doubt either side of the argument (otherwise there would be no point debating over it). So it will remain a matter of interpretation, unless there is some way to go back and observe the beginning of the universe, or observe evolution happening.
Bondings
Xipha wrote:
There is no way to prove beyond a doubt either side of the argument (otherwise there would be no point debating over it). So it will remain a matter of interpretation, unless there is some way to go back and observe the beginning of the universe, or observe evolution happening.

It is possible to observe parts close the beginning of the universe. Light has been detected form galaxies/stars close to 13 billion years ago.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang

About the start of life on earth, there is currently no globally accepted scientific theory for that. There are many possible ways life could have started in general. However, it is extremely difficult if not impossible to determine what really happened due to time (a few billion years) and size (smaller than a bactery or virus).
Quote:
And scientists have never succeeded in creating life even when they have all the building blocks right there.

1) Till a few years ago, it was meant to be impossible to clone animals. It's still hard but proven to be possible. It's not because scientists aren't able to create something, that it is impossible to create.
2) It is actually a matter of definition wether scientists already created life or not. They already created all parts needed to suit the definition of life, they only need to combine them. This should be achieved in 2-3 years, not more. However, this will(most likely) be a completely different life form than what happened on earth. Even if takes a bit longer than 3 years, one day it will be possible and then you won't be able to use that argument anymore.
Quote:
If you have found a source where they clearly state that they have found absolute proof

There is no absolute proof for gravity either. Only a bunch of observations which might be wrong.
Quote:
But like I said before there has never been an observed case of genetic data being added to the gene pool (only lost).

Who told you that? This is completely not true. Of course it's harder to observe these things on bigger animals because they live longer. But if you take fruit flies ... They live only a few day to a few weeks and scientists love to experiment with them. (By modifying their DNA they can make them live 3 times longer on average, make them 50% smarter. Of course this is much more difficult for bigger/complexer animals like humans, but it should be possible one day.)
http://sln.fi.edu/inquirer/fruitfly.html
blackstripes
holy cow... i've computerless for 2 weeks and this is how far my post goes? heh, never thought it be that big.
Bondings
blackstripes wrote:
holy cow... i've computerless for 2 weeks and this is how far my post goes? heh, never thought it be that big.

Lol, why do you think that they call it a big bang?
illini319
David_Pardy wrote:
Actually, there is no proof of Evolution. Radiometric dating has been PROVEN to be flawed. Carbon dating is flawed. FRESH dinosaur bones have been found, and so have partially fresh bones - some with red blood cells still inside. There is no proof of Evolution at all. There are fossils of extinct animals, of extinct apes.

There are also two things which completely cancel out the possibility of Evolution occurring:

DNA

and

Chromosomes.

Flaws in and damaged DNA cause cancer.

Downs Syndrome is caused by being born with an extra chromosome.

THIS STUFF IS TAUGHT IN HIGH SCHOOL!!!

Downs Syndrome people CAN NOT reproduce successfully! Cancer is NOT a beneficial change!

Evolution is a lie and there are far too many people who believe in it. Look at the REAL science - the science which ISN'T biased towards Evolution and you will see an infinite number of holes open up in the theory.


I don't even know where to begin...

Evolution, in all its forms (including punctuated equlibrium -- see the works of Stephen J. Gould), continues to be the most consistent theory regarding biodiversity on this planet. Extrapolation of the theory of evolution (the 'we came from apes... therefore there is no God' lines) is simply just that. An extraplation. Evolution does not explain/refute the existence of any deity. GET THAT STRAIGHT. People, like you, who have remedial understanding of evolution run with the theory and make your own SECONDARY interpretation concerning it.. and then state that it's flawed. What is flawed is your interpretation-- and your knowledge of the scientific field, at large.

1.Here is the original publication of your 'fresh' dinosaur.

Here is an interview of the authors of that publication stating VERY CLEARLY that dinosaur in question, is 70 million years old.


2.Citing the caveats of a given technique (carbon dating) does not make all things measured by this technique FLAWED. It implies a level of inaccuracy. THEREFORE, as all good scientists must do, many things which are dated are measured in a variety of radiological techniques. This is to avoid the weaknesses of any one technique, to increase the number of independents tests done on any given sample, and ultimately to corroborate all data and determine if the fitness (confidence) is conclusive. As someone already alluded to, carbon ain't the only thing scientists use to date things... we would call that insufficient data.

3. Chromosomes and DNA: I take this personally as I hold a doctorate in this field. Your chromosomes are like the strata found in rocks. It is absolutely shocking how much 'junk' DNA resides in the human genome. It's defined as junk... because it's not expressed; no protein is made from it. BUT, if you look carefully (as you haven't) you would find that
this so-called junk DNA is like a fossil field. Many remnants of viruses that have long since stopped being pathologic are there. Many remnants of genes, that have long since stopped being EXPRESSED by humans are there. In addition, you can see numerous phylogenetic homologies (molecular family tree) of many proteins. i.e. we have proteins which, very clearly, have evolved from earlier prototypes found in lesser organisms (down to bacteria). I won't belabor this point any longer (believe me, if you decide to argue this point with me... it will be a long day for both of us).

4. what does cancer have to do with evolution? And how is cancer related to trisomy 21? I guess, being religious, you like to take leaps? where is your logic here?


Finally, as you may have seen in MY earlier posts... I am not one who actually thinks religion is contradictory to all things scientific. In fact, I think that to be truly scientific is to seriously consider how it could be possible that a 'higher power' may be instrumental to our existence, AND not to immediately discount theories/faiths as if you have better data. No one knows. Therefore, no conclusions should be made at this time.
benwhite
Biased towards science maybe. But many religious thinkers of the past advocated science. The great Jewish scholars of medieval Spain, like Maimonides and Abraham ibn Ezra claimed that one must study science in order to understand God's works. Just because science now says things that seem to go against the words of the bible doesn't mean its study is any less valid.

Religion is faith and Science is proof. Science isn't proof against faith. The whole point of faith is that it cannot and should not be proven. The conflict is imposed on the principles that the two are mutually exclusive, propagated by people on both sides of the argument. In reality, there's no reason there can't be natural design in evolution. There's no reason God didn't have a role to play in the way our world from the very beginning. Viewing science as a threat to religion only weakens the aspects of your faith. Just because the world is old doesn't mean God didn't make it.
Xipha
Quote:
It is possible to observe parts close the beginning of the universe. Light has been detected form galaxies/stars close to 13 billion years ago.


Ok, this is good point, however there are possible explanations. Here is an interesting theory http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/405.asp. Read it through carefully until the end, or you will miss important details. I am not saying that this is necessarily what happened but it is a scientifically valid theory, just as gravity is a scientifically valid theory.

Quote:
1) Till a few years ago, it was meant to be impossible to clone animals. It's still hard but proven to be possible. It's not because scientists aren't able to create something, that it is impossible to create.
2) It is actually a matter of definition wether scientists already created life or not. They already created all parts needed to suit the definition of life, they only need to combine them. This should be achieved in 2-3 years, not more. However, this will(most likely) be a completely different life form than what happened on earth. Even if takes a bit longer than 3 years, one day it will be possible and then you won't be able to use that argument anymore.


Yes they have made the components for life. And they think that they can create life. And if they ever do I won't be able to use that argument. But I wouldn't be so hasty to say that they will be able to make something nonliving into something living. ( http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v22/i2/scratch.asp )

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
But like I said before there has never been an observed case of genetic data being added to the gene pool (only lost).
Who told you that? This is completely not true. Of course it's harder to observe these things on bigger animals because they live longer. But if you take fruit flies ... They live only a few day to a few weeks and scientists love to experiment with them. (By modifying their DNA they can make them live 3 times longer on average, make them 50% smarter. Of course this is much more difficult for bigger/complexer animals like humans, but it should be possible one day.)
http://sln.fi.edu/inquirer/fruitfly.html


Yes scientists modified there DNA. This was not a natural occurence and genetic engineering mostly consists of damaging and editing existing genes and seeing what the result is, as in the case of the fruit flys. Let me modify my previous statement. There is no observed natural case of genetic data being added to the gene pool. Put those same fruit flys in an environment and as long as you leave them there the only changes you will see in genetics are the ones who are not suited to that environment dieing and not reproducing, thus narrowing the gene pool.


Quote:

We asked him about instances of so-called ‘simulated evolution’ or ‘accelerated evolution’ in work like his. Here, bacteria are encouraged to mutate (produce lots of genetic copying errors) much faster than usual, in order to be able to choose a type that is suited to what one has in mind. ‘For example,’ Dr Eirich explained, ‘one searches among the variants produced by the accelerated rate of mutation to try to find an organism that can break down sugars of a type that it was previously unable to break down.’

Because of the obvious analogy with neo-Darwinian mutation and natural selection, we asked, did this show that it was plausible to go from microbes to man, given billions of years?

‘Definitely not’, he replied. ‘When my bacteria gain the ability to do something, in the process they lose something else. And the circumstances have to be very carefully controlled by human manipulation.’

Engineering genes is of course the opposite of evolution, in which things are supposed to happen by themselves; it demonstrates creativity and applied intelligence.

Dr Eirich gave us other insights from his perspective. He said, ‘We don’t yet have the ability to predict from the gene sequence what the exact function of a gene will be—a lot of it is trial and error. You can put gene “x” into organism “y”, and it may not do what it did in the original organism. Scientists doing this kind of work are finding it takes years of effort to get genes to function properly in an organism because the regulating pathways have to be made to work.’

He continued: ‘If you wanted to engineer a fly to turn it into something else, it would have to be re-engineered from the ground up. Natural selection would tend to eliminate all the adjustments along the way. Blind chance and future environments would not know that it has to keep useless bits of equipment until another enzyme evolved; you need a chain of enzymes, and you need the enzymes to be regulated.’

Dr Eirich went on: ‘Lots of genes are common to many creatures; ban­anas, for instance, share 50% of their genes with humans. But it’s how the genes are regulated that makes a bat a bat and a cat a cat. We don’t understand this very well at all in science. The so-called “junk” DNA is probably involved in that somehow. There are layers of additional complexity that we are only just discovering—codes within codes as it were.’

.( http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v27/i1/eirich.asp ) (sorry for the long quote)

Quote:
what does cancer have to do with evolution? And how is cancer related to trisomy 21? I guess, being religious, you like to take leaps? where is your logic here?


I think that their point here was that cancer is a genetic mutation, and is not beneficial. Mutations in general do not seem to be beneficial, because DNA is damaged and/or lost causing causing an organism not to funtion as well.

This is an interesting article that shows that fossilization does not take millions of years, and actually can occur very rapidly.
http://www.bible.ca/tracks/rapid-fossils-rapid-petrifaction.htm
another interesting article
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v19/i3/stars.asp
Quote:
Quote:
blackheart
Science and religion are opposites.
Science is always pushing forward, seeking to explain the unexplained and solve the world's problems through the materialistic means.

Religion's purpose has been to explain what had no explanation - and provide people with a meaning for their lives beyond that of being just another chemical reaction moving about an infinite universe. To teach morals to children so they might grow-up uncorrupted. To try and fix the world's problems through more spiritual means, through talking and psychological reason.
Religion has always tried to hold the world static - to stay without change.

Even myself non-religious, I don't consider either more right of wrong, and can see the merits of both.
Sadly it's inevitable that one of the other has always had to ebb back, and finally I think science has debunked too much of religion for it to last through the centuries to come.

(Note: I do believe in a higher power, just not religion or neccessarily a "God")
blackheart
XSTG wrote:
Science created us. God created science. God created science to create us to ask ourselves this question.


You had better coin that phrase fast - because it's one of the most impressive pro-religion statements I've ever read.
blackheart
David_Pardy wrote:

There are also two things which completely cancel out the possibility of Evolution occurring:

DNA

and

Chromosomes.

Flaws in and damaged DNA cause cancer.

Downs Syndrome is caused by being born with an extra chromosome.

THIS STUFF IS TAUGHT IN HIGH SCHOOL!!!

Downs Syndrome people CAN NOT reproduce successfully! Cancer is NOT a beneficial change!

Evolution is a lie and there are far too many people who believe in it. Look at the REAL science - the science which ISN'T biased towards Evolution and you will see an infinite number of holes open up in the theory.


I am IN high-school - and I would hope you were also taught that there are also BENEFICIAL chnages, not just DESTRUCTIVE changes in DNA and Chromosonal structure. The point is that is every baby has a tiny, random mutation. Some, often the more common and obvious ones, are devestating, unpleasant, or even fatal. But the point again is that those with positive changes live to pass on the same structure to their children, and with inter-breeding over thousands of years, ever human - or at least a race of human - should have managed to obtain soem small portion of that gene.
Ideally, how-ever cruel - we are screwing up evolution by our fair, equal attitude toward all. I'm awkward on my opinion on this because I believe that babies should live where possible - but the evolution process is going to work against us by still breeding flaws into the human race, i.e. down syndrome and people prone to cancer.

Understand before you make such a bold statement.

There are flaws in every theory and process - and I can assure you I could highlight every second page of any scripture.
benwhite
Most rare genetic traits come from recessive genes. It has proposed (and evidence supports this) that the reason debiliting diseases are able to survive in a population (are 'selected' for) is because their recessive form is actually advantageous.

A quick example: Cystic fibrosis is a pretty bad disease and is often fatal. It's most common in Europeans and especially in Askenazic Jews. (interesting that diseases have different prevalences, already a bit evolutionary support right there). However, it's been shown that having one copy of the gene that causes CF helps metabolize salt in a context that would be beneficial in times of malnutrition. Thus, the gene was selected for during times of the plague and such. There are many such examples. But just because a disease kills doesn't mean there aren't reasons for the gene to be maintained in the gene pool.

Also, some mutations are just common. The one that causes Achondroplasia (most common form of dwarfism) is a new mutation 80% of the time. So, though it can be pased down, in most cases it is not (which makes sense, because until modern times, life would have been very difficult). Many extremely debilitating diseases are a result of random mutations.

Bad diseases don't discredit evolution. Whoever said that needs to study more.
Bondings
Xipha wrote:
another interesting article
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v19/i3/stars.asp

Maybe read what a scientist from the nasa has to say.

Quote:
Welcome to Imagine the Universe! This site is intended for students age 14 and up, and for anyone interested in learning about our universe.

Wink
illini319
Xipha wrote:
Quote:
what does cancer have to do with evolution? And how is cancer related to trisomy 21? I guess, being religious, you like to take leaps? where is your logic here?


I think that their point here was that cancer is a genetic mutation, and is not beneficial. Mutations in general do not seem to be beneficial, because DNA is damaged and/or lost causing causing an organism not to funtion as well.


I know what his/her point was. Did they? Genetic mutation is constant. Genetic mutation is stochastic. They are, by virtue, accidental. Not all bad, not all good, and most neutral. In any given organism in any given day, there are loads of mutations that occur. Most are corrected, by inherent self-correcting mechanisms. Some are not. Those that are not, can be deleterious; and even these can be dealt with at an organismal level. And some.. are even passed on for no obvious reason whatsoever. They are just ignored since they did not have any advantageous or deleterious effect for the organism where it originally came from.
So... this mutation is propagated throughout several more generations because there is no selection against it. Until, finally, the winds shift and some environmental factor changes. For whatever reason, those environmental changes place undue stress on many organisms, INCLUDING the descendants of animal that had the original mutation AND his cousins who do NOT have the mutation. Up until that day, those that had the mutation and those that didn't, all those organisms lived/looked similarly. After that day, those that had that mutation all of a sudden are more fit to survive in this changed environment. So... more of them survive than those that don't. They change the balance of the gene pool... and the species moves on with more of them bearing this mutation. Aah, but it wouldn't be considered a mutation anymore since MOST of the species would have it by then... An original mutation that wasn't designed to create fitness. A mutation that didn't occur in that generation when the environment change. It was a completely neutral mutation... until the environmental conditions were just right that the minor change became a deciding factor on the survivability of a species. This doesn't happen overnight. This doesn't happen to all mutations (some infinitesimally low percent). But it does happen; on a timescale that is often under-appreciated.
Xipha
Quote:
Genetic mutation is constant. Genetic mutation is stochastic. They are, by virtue, accidental. Not all bad, not all good, and most neutral. In any given organism in any given day, there are loads of mutations that occur. Most are corrected, by inherent self-correcting mechanisms. Some are not. Those that are not, can be deleterious; and even these can be dealt with at an organismal level. And some.. are even passed on for no obvious reason whatsoever. They are just ignored since they did not have any advantageous or deleterious effect for the organism where it originally came from.
So... this mutation is propagated throughout several more generations because there is no selection against it. Until, finally, the winds shift and some environmental factor changes. For whatever reason, those environmental changes place undue stress on many organisms, INCLUDING the descendants of animal that had the original mutation AND his cousins who do NOT have the mutation. Up until that day, those that had the mutation and those that didn't, all those organisms lived/looked similarly. After that day, those that had that mutation all of a sudden are more fit to survive in this changed environment. So... more of them survive than those that don't. They change the balance of the gene pool... and the species moves on with more of them bearing this mutation. Aah, but it wouldn't be considered a mutation anymore since MOST of the species would have it by then... An original mutation that wasn't designed to create fitness. A mutation that didn't occur in that generation when the environment change. It was a completely neutral mutation... until the environmental conditions were just right that the minor change became a deciding factor on the survivability of a species. This doesn't happen overnight. This doesn't happen to all mutations (some infinitesimally low percent). But it does happen; on a timescale that is often under-appreciated.


Ok you are pretty much describing adaption, or natural selection (which is something both creationists and evolutionists agree on) However even with mutations there is no new genetic information added whether the mutation is beneficial or not, so they are certainly not proof of evolution. Information has always been a problem for evolution, and scientists have never been able to explain where the new information comes from. A computer programmer once said:

Quote:
If I wrote a program, and copied and pasted the code, and then told an evolutionist that it got better all by itself he certainly would not believe me.


for a more detailed explantion of information see the following:
http://www.trueorigin.org/dawkinfo.asp
Bondings
Xipha wrote:
A computer programmer once said:

Quote:
If I wrote a program, and copied and pasted the code, and then told an evolutionist that it got better all by itself he certainly would not believe me.


for a more detailed explantion of information see the following:
http://www.trueorigin.org/dawkinfo.asp

The difference is that, unless the programmer had a very bad computer, the code wasn't changed randomly.

Ever heared of Artificial Intelligence? One of the techniques is to start with a clean algorithm that is possible to do some basic operations (like the 4 bases of DNA). Every 'generation' the code is slightly changed(another operation) and/or some operation is added. These modifications were made randomly and let's say 1000 times (children). Afterwards, they look at the output of the children and compare it with the real output. The algorithms with the best solution will get more children than the others, depending on how they perform. After a few generations results become visible.

This way some algorithms have been made that were either much shorter or much more performant than existing human-made algorithms.

So, for sure information can be added. And no, this isn't how nature did it.
Xipha
Quote:
Ever heared of Artificial Intelligence? One of the techniques is to start with a clean algorithm that is possible to do some basic operations (like the 4 bases of DNA). Every 'generation' the code is slightly changed(another operation) and/or some operation is added. These modifications were made randomly and let's say 1000 times (children). Afterwards, they look at the output of the children and compare it with the real output. The algorithms with the best solution will get more children than the others, depending on how they perform. After a few generations results become visible.

This way some algorithms have been made that were either much shorter or much more performant than existing human-made algorithms.


Ok, so what changed the code then? You said yourself unless you have a really bad computer the code doesn't change randomly. If it is not a random change then there must be some higher program that causes or at the very least has parameters that tell the program to change. these changes. Otherwise you would be very unlikely to get any positive changes at all, only code that the computer couldn't understand or interpret into anything useful, because the structure of it would have changed into something it couldn't recognize. The information had to be input at some time (maybe in a different or more complex form) by some intelligent sender. Information cannot generate on its own.
Bondings
Xipha wrote:
Ok, so what changed the code then? You said yourself unless you have a really bad computer the code doesn't change randomly. If it is not a random change then there must be some higher program that causes these changes. Otherwise you would be very unlikely to get any positive changes at all, only code that the computer couldn't understand or interpret into anything useful, because the structure of it would have changed into something it couldn't recognize. The information had to be input at some time (maybe in a different or more complex form) by some intelligent sender. Information cannot generate on its own.

First of all, I didn't mean it would randomly generate bits of code. Compare it with DNA (A, C, T or G) but this is only a stupid/simple example of AI.

Let's give you an easy example. You search for the fastest way to compute x^n with sums (add) and until clauses and use AI for this. The code is then executed. There are 2 options: it fails completely or it is executed and we don't bother about the errors(became to complicated).

It starts with a clean algorithm with nothing inside it. Every generation the computer adds one or more of the possible options(x n + until A(answer)) to the code or changes one or a few - all randomly.

The code that scored the best on a few tests gets more children, this means that there are made several versions of it, much more than from the other less-successful versions.

Ok, here we go. (to simplify I never assumed that the code remained the same, which should be an important option) We test with x=4 and n=2. The test should be changing each time randomly though in a real program.

Code:
generation 1
code1: x (x)
code2: until (0)

generation 2
code11: x + (x)
code12: x until (x)
code13: + (0)
code21: n (n)

generation 3
code111: x + until (failed-->dead)
... (not enough time)
code121: x until x (x)
... (not enough time)
code131: + x (x)
code211: n until (n)
code212: n x (x)
code213: until (0)

generation 4
code1211: x + x (2x)
code1212: x until x + (x)
code1213: x until x n (n)
code1214: x until x until (x)
code1215: n until x (n)

...

generation x
code1*****: x+x until x until n


Of course this should be much more complex and executed by a computer and not by me. And yes I know that there are still a few errors in my example. Wink
boringest
woah...this seems to have exploded to quite a big discussion, anyway just wondering if you guys have read about the big hoo-haa about "intelligent design" which kinda disproves the evolution theory and says that something out there created us and it's not possible for evolution to make us what we are today.

Read more here:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/12/20/intelligent.design.ap/index.html
Bondings
boringest wrote:
the big hoo-haa about "intelligent design" which kinda disproves the evolution theory

The problem is that it only thinks to disprove the evolution theory. Most of it arguments are completely ok, but there is always one bad conclusion or detail which isn't mentioned.

I'll give you an example of a so-called theory that disproves mathematics.
Code:
a = b
a*a = a*b
a*a - b*b = a*b -b*b
(a+b)*(a-b) = b*(a-b)
(a+b) = b
(b+b) = b
2*b = b
2=1

Does this code disprove mathematics? No it doesn't because there is one little detail/mistake which I (deliberately or not) didn't mention.

No matter how many other examples I give, this isn't enough evidence to let an alternative mathematics theory be taught.
luis123456,webspace4free.
I believe more in the Science becase have a explicatio for all.-
Xipha
Creationists do not claim to be able to "disprove" evolution. Neither evolution nor creation can be proven or disproven. However the same evidence and facts can be interpreted different ways based upon certain presuppositions that are held. There is no proof of these presuppositions, nor can there ever be because we cannot go back and observe the beginning (which is why "science" will never destroy "religion"). For evolutionists these presuppositions affect everything, radiometric dating, fossil records, geological deposits etc.., none of them would make sense without assuming certain things, (most evolutionists take a uniformitarian perspective). The same thing goes for creationists they make presuppositions based on a biblical history. The important thing is that the data which evolutionists have interpreted and portray as "facts" supporting evolution, can also be interpreted to support creation and still make perfect sense and support a biblical history. It is pointless to continue the debate over creation and evolution until people realize that all arguments come down to these presuppositions. You cannot truly debate it unless you realize the presuppositions that you have made. For example, the fossil record, from an evolutionists point of view shows millions of years and different animals living in different time periods. For a creationist it is a record of a global flood, in which creatures were buried suddenly, and the different layers show which animals were in general able to evade being drowned/ buried the longest. Here is an example of how a creationist could scientifically interperet the fossil record.

Quote:
The ‘fountains of the great deep’ (Gen. 7:11) would logically have buried small seafloor creatures first. Water plants would generally be buried before coastal and mountain plants. Land creatures would be buried last, especially the mammals and birds that could escape to higher ground. The more intelligent creatures would find a way to escape until the very end, leaving their bodies nearer the surface, where post-Flood erosion would destroy most evidence of their existence. Humans would have been most resilient of all, clinging to debris and rafts, before they died of exposure; their floating bodies would have made easy meals for scavenging fish, so would not have fossilized as readily. Most mammal and human fossils are post-Flood.


This also provides an explanation for why there are sometimes anomalies in the fossil record such as creatures appearing in the "wrong geological strata".

Scientists interpret the data according to what they already believe and use these interpretations to create stories as to how we got here. Of course there are still things to discover, noone knows everything. But evolution certainly has a lot of gaps and inconsistencies to fill in, one of the biggest being the generation of new information from a non intelligent source. Information is not created by natural causes. As well

Quote:
a code is absolutely useless to the recipient without the knowledge of the language. In the same way, let us say that the imaginary ‘first protocell’ to develop on the evolutionist’s hypothetical ‘primitive Earth’ had indeed somehow, mysteriously, developed the information coding for the manufacture of just one functional protein. Remember that natural selection is no help until one first has a self-replicating organism. Thus, chance would have to arrange thousands of letters in a specific sequence, an astronomically preposterous achievement.4

Even granting this gigantic ‘head start’, having such a code would be absolutely useless unless there was already in place the complex machinery which recognized every one of the DNA molecule’s chemical ‘letters’ and simultaneously translated them into the right amino acids.


So it is just as big a leap of faith to believe in molecule-to-man-evolution as it is to believe that an intelligent God designed all life and the universe according to Genesis, and creating the code of DNA so we could be self-replicating independant creatures capable of surviving. Again it all depends on your presuppositions as to how you interpret the data.
Arnie
And that (your last sentence) explains why both science and religion are things you have to believe in. You have to believe that what they say is correct and rock-solid. It's what makes this debate unsolvable.
Reaper
Quote:
Quote:
The ‘fountains of the great deep’ (Gen. 7:11) would logically have buried small seafloor creatures first. Water plants would generally be buried before coastal and mountain plants. Land creatures would be buried last, especially the mammals and birds that could escape to higher ground. The more intelligent creatures would find a way to escape until the very end, leaving their bodies nearer the surface, where post-Flood erosion would destroy most evidence of their existence. Humans would have been most resilient of all, clinging to debris and rafts, before they died of exposure; their floating bodies would have made easy meals for scavenging fish, so would not have fossilized as readily. Most mammal and human fossils are post-Flood.


This also provides an explanation for why there are sometimes anomalies in the fossil record such as creatures appearing in the "wrong geological strata".

Scientists interpret the data according to what they already believe and use these interpretations to create stories as to how we got here. Of course there are still things to discover, noone knows everything. But evolution certainly has a lot of gaps and inconsistencies to fill in, one of the biggest being the generation of new information from a non intelligent source. Information is not created by natural causes. As well


Your right there are gaps in evolution, but if your talking about animals and fish fossils appearing both in africa and north america and other continent things like that then your wrong, that can be accounted for if you take into account that our continents constantly move or "Shift" over thousands of years, and was once one huge continent so they would have shared animals and other life forms until the continents broke apart and drifted to there present location.
Here's a site about this http://kids.earth.nasa.gov/archive/pangaea/

Also if there was a giant flood that happened in history wouldn't there be some evidence of it because it was so massive? and please dont give me a link with the words genisis, bible, or god included in the url.....
Preacher
I understand where the above post is coming from(21/12/05 2:33 pm) and I've heard the arguement before. But the simple fact still remains that in order to believe in science, you have to believe that there is no God. And in order to believe in God, you have to believe that the scientists are wrong. The simple fact of the matter is that the choice to follow christ is just that, a choice! And before you make that choice let me tell you a little bit about my life since I made the choice to follow christ. I no longer have to ask the question "what is it all for?" because my life has purpose and meaning. If you are a darwinist, this question will plague you for your entire life, because there is no one/nothing to answer it except yourself. I am now comforted every day by the fact that even in my darkest, lonliest hour, there is still someone out there who knows exactly where I am, exactly what I'm going through, and still loves me just the way I am no matter where I've been, what I've done, or how badly I've let Him down. I live every day with the assurance that, in the end, " the Lord will cause all things to work together for the good of those who love Him." And one of my personal favorites...Romans 10: 13 "For anyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved" (Holy Bible, New living translation). I am not trying to argue with you, and I am not looking for a fight of any kind. I simply want to give you a small look at the life christ offers you! It makes you thankful, it gives you hope, it gives you a solid rock to stand on and, above all, it gives life purpose beyond death! if you choose to accept Christ, or just want more information (and I pray that you all do) I am more than willing to post it here.

God bless you all and Merry Christmas!

-A friend
Xipha
Quote:
Your right there are gaps in evolution, but if your talking about animals and fish fossils appearing both in africa and north america and other continent things like that then your wrong, that can be accounted for if you take into account that our continents constantly move or "Shift" over thousands of years, and was once one huge continent so they would have shared animals and other life forms until the continents broke apart and drifted to there present location.
Here's a site about this http://kids.earth.nasa.gov/archive/pangaea/


Actually I was speaking of the fact that sometimes animal fossils are found in rocks that are supposedly from a much earlier period than they would have lived (evolutionists have invented convenient just-so stories to explain this). And scientists in general have admitted that there may have been a global flood. If you start with biblical presuppositions the evidence is plentiful. For example the formation of the grand canyon, and various other rock formations indicate that sediment was laid down quickly in rapid succesion. The bending of the rock formations without cracking indicates that the layers had not had time to harden when the next layer was deposited. So a global flood has plenty of evidence when looked at with different presuppositions than evolutionists use. As well creationists do not argue continental drift. There is even a scientific model which shows (if you do not take a uniformitarian perspective) that the continents could have seperated very rapidly, causing a global flood. (http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/AnswersBook/continental11.asp) So again, based on the presuppositions you begin with the same evidence can support both sides.

And don't ask me to give a URL without the Bible, genesis, or God in the URL, because Creationism has biblical foundations, so no matter which creationist site you go to you will invariably find reference to the Bible and Genesis. This is like asking me to defend my point without my presuppositions. Now to be fair I should ask you to defend your point without your presuppositions. Defend evolution without referencing any site that talks about Darwin, Neo-Darwinism, or random muations, or billions of years. Doesn't work does it because these things are what your presuppositions are based on.(If you want me to take what you said literally, here is a URL without any of those words in it. Of course it will still mention the bible, but your only biased against the URL right? http://www.globalflood.org/papers/2003ICCcpt.html as well you could check out some of the articles on this site http://www.trueorigin.org/ , http://www.trueorigin.org/ng_ap01.asp)
DizzyThermal
I am Chrisitian... I believe God created the earth for more that just faith.... I have read some books on near death experiences and read up on so crazy things that people experience... I think it's scary how you can feel this warm feeling and you see a white flash... This probably means you are going somewhere else... and I absoluetly do not believe in Reincarnation... How can you die and basically "respawn" into another body... This world was created by God. He created the world in 7 days. If you seriously read the bible and get a basic understanding... Some information, though, may seem oblivious but most of it is interesting things that make you think... If you have questions about religion or how the earth was created. I would recommend on reading the Bible =D.
Reaper
What your say is true enough about the URL. But couldn't some of these land formations have been caused by say an ice berg that came though and removed soil while replacing it as it passed with soil from other areas it picked up along the way? also the grand canyon could just be the left overs of a big river that's main water source eventually dryed up? because not even a giant flood could cut though that much rock, that sort of thing usually takes time, lots and lots of time. And as for the fossil thing, I misunderstood what you said because of how it was worded.
But still you do bring up some good points in general.
illini319
Xipha wrote:
Ok you are pretty much describing adaption, or natural selection (which is something both creationists and evolutionists agree on) However even with mutations there is no new genetic information added whether the mutation is beneficial or not, so they are certainly not proof of evolution. Information has always been a problem for evolution, and scientists have never been able to explain where the new information comes from.


I apologize for such a late reply. A mutation, by definition, is a change from the norm. In terms of genetic mutation, this is NEW genetic information. That gene, which had been mutated, is now different from its original template. Fast forward many generations and that gene may only remotely resemble its original starting place. If I were an investigator taking a look that both genes, they may both look so dissimilar it may be difficult to say that one came from the other... but because of the exhaustive whole genome sequencing being done across so many species, one can plot how one single gene evolved to function in a completely different way.

Example:
Flagella are these whip-like cellular 'organs' which single cell organisms like bacteria use to move about. They literally spin these tails like a propellor. You might be surprised to know that flagella, and all the proteins that make up the flagella, are inside every human being. Are they being used by our cells to move about? nope. What you would call rods and cones, the sensing structures within the retina of our eyes, are actually specialized flagella. They bear all the similar proteins that bacterial flagella have EXCEPT they are no longer being used for movement. In our case, these are being used to process light. At a molecular (i.e. DNA or protein) level, the bacterial flagella are exquisitely similar to our rods and cones. Hence through numerous mutations, all of which were random, flagella have EVOLVED to fulfill a completely different (let's call that one NEW) function. This particular example not only highlights the evolution of a set of proteins, it also reveals some of the weaknesses of the intelligent design theory. i.e. the idea that cells are so complex they could not have possibly evolved on their own. Biology is the great copier; it doesn't re-invent the wheel for every function of the cell. It takes tried and true systems, like the flagella, and uses it in completely different ways. Either way it is still a similar set of proteins. When you take a step back you will find numerous examples like the flagella. Complexity is in the eye of the beholder.

Information (data) has not been a problem for evolution. To clarify, information has not nearly been as lacking for evolution as it has regarding 'facts' in religion.
shamil
blackstripes wrote:
how bout a topic that a lot of ppl can relate to? did "God" really create the earth? or was is just a form of evolution from super nova? was adam and eve who were really the first humans? or were we monkeys to begin with that evolved to a human state? ok... so sum facts could be false both on science and religion... i mean, wut it seems to me... ppl believe in religion just by reading the bible... but then again, the bible is just a book. ppl could possibly just be reading sum stories made by a fictional writer in the past. or maybe not. science does give in a lot of facts, but then they are pretty hard to understand them... for example.... err..... like a goldfish! scientists say that the goldfish has a bad memory... but how the hell would they know that? they cant speak to a fish!! or even know wut runs in their minds. okay... so the goldfish isnt really a good example on how the world is created... but still, it does give a point that scientist sumtmes dont really know anything. so in everyone's opinion... wut do u think it is? was it a "God" that created the world and all of mankind? or was it evolution?


God (ALLAH) created everything.
Yes they were first humans.
NO! I beleive in that my ancestors were not monkeys.

Can you imagine that the computer which you wrote this topic from being created from evolution?
if not how about a human kind?

I don't say to anyone beleive in ALLAH. And can't say. Who wants to get real answer just think as if you haven't heared anything from others and think anything you wonder.
Xipha
Quote:
What your say is true enough about the URL. But couldn't some of these land formations have been caused by say an ice berg that came though and removed soil while replacing it as it passed with soil from other areas it picked up along the way? also the grand canyon could just be the left overs of a big river that's main water source eventually dryed up? because not even a giant flood could cut though that much rock


Could have been. We don't know. The data could be interpreted as supporting either side. As for the Grand Canyon, there have been similar formations observed that were only very recently created by local flash floods. It is very plausible that it formed in a very short period of time.

Quote:
The 1980 eruption of the Mt St Helens volcano12 and the more recent Icelandic megaflood13 have given us small glimpses of how much damage large volumes of water can cause to a landscape. Features such as multi-layered sedimentary rock, canyons, and waterways which ‘look very old’ have been formed in only a few days!


Quote:
I apologize for such a late reply. A mutation, by definition, is a change from the norm. In terms of genetic mutation, this is NEW genetic information. That gene, which had been mutated, is now different from its original template. Fast forward many generations and that gene may only remotely resemble its original starting place. If I were an investigator taking a look that both genes, they may both look so dissimilar it may be difficult to say that one came from the other... but because of the exhaustive whole genome sequencing being done across so many species, one can plot how one single gene evolved to function in a completely different way.

Example:
Flagella are these whip-like cellular 'organs' which single cell organisms like bacteria use to move about. They literally spin these tails like a propellor. You might be surprised to know that flagella, and all the proteins that make up the flagella, are inside every human being. Are they being used by our cells to move about? nope. What you would call rods and cones, the sensing structures within the retina of our eyes, are actually specialized flagella. They bear all the similar proteins that bacterial flagella have EXCEPT they are no longer being used for movement. In our case, these are being used to process light. At a molecular (i.e. DNA or protein) level, the bacterial flagella are exquisitely similar to our rods and cones. Hence through numerous mutations, all of which were random, flagella have EVOLVED to fulfill a completely different (let's call that one NEW) function. This particular example not only highlights the evolution of a set of proteins, it also reveals some of the weaknesses of the intelligent design theory. i.e. the idea that cells are so complex they could not have possibly evolved on their own. Biology is the great copier; it doesn't re-invent the wheel for every function of the cell. It takes tried and true systems, like the flagella, and uses it in completely different ways. Either way it is still a similar set of proteins. When you take a step back you will find numerous examples like the flagella. Complexity is in the eye of the beholder.

Information (data) has not been a problem for evolution. To clarify, information has not nearly been as lacking for evolution as it has regarding 'facts' in religion.


Yes a genetic mutation is a change from the norm, but there has never been an observed case of such a mutation adding information. The change occurs because DNA has been damaged or blocked, which often allows latent information that was already there to come through. It is not new genetic information, it is the emerging of already existing information. Generations later they may look dissimilar from each other because the same information is missing or rearranged. This still does not solve theproblem of how the information became encoded in thefirst place.

And how the flagella example proves evolution I don't see. Yes we have flagella material in us but that doesn't mean it evolved there. By observing a final state and a similar initial state, with no intermediate observation, you cannot extrapolate that into proof of evolution. You are certainly free to interperet it that way. And how it poses a problem for intelligent design I don't see either. It is no problem for an intellgent designer to use the same building blocks for different functions. (I must ask you what you think the intermediate "evolutionary" stages may have looked like and how they would have any function at all).

If evolution really occured there would be an incredible amount of mutations required, and somewhere along the line they would have to add genetic information, and so there should be many observable beneficial mutations that add information observable today. Not only have scientists not found a single case where information is added, 99% of mutations are harmful, there are a few neutral ones, and less than 1% that are beneficial (especially in the long term). Generally even when an organism goes through a beneficial mutation, it only affects short term survival, and has other weaknesses. (for example certain people are lacking a gene, and as a result are very insuceptible to Malaria, and this would appear to be a beneficial mutation, however these people overall are more sickly, phyically weaker, and generally die younger than most people.) So say an organism mutates through many generations over billions of years (lets just say that billions of years are available) If every generation there is 1 mutation then 99 generations will have bad mutations, every 100th generation there will be a neutral or beneficial mutation. Now not all of these bad mutations are immediately fatal, and some are latent and do not appear until generations later. So when you occasionally do get a good mutation it is mixed in with many many bad mutations, which will continue to ge passed down. So as time goes on the organism gets more and more bad mutations which will affect its survival, and even the occasional good one (especially if each mutation is as small as evolutionists claim they are) will not greatly increase the chance of survival anyways. So essentially time becomes evolutions enemy, because the more time that passes the more bad mutations and genetic corruption and noise becomes part of this organisms DNA. And yet scientists try to tell us that an organism gets better over time. And still remains the problem of how genetic information gets added in the first place remains a mystery to evolutionists. There are lots of little peices of the evolutionary theory which seem plausible at first, but when you look at the big picture it takes a lot of faith to believe in molecule to man evolution.

Quote:
Mutations baffle evolutionists
Researchers have tried to measure how many damaging mutations (inherited copying mistakes) appear in the genes of each new generation of humans. However, they began by assuming that current theories of molecular evolution are true.

On this basis, they compared human DNA with that of gorillas and chimpanzees. From this, they calculated conservatively that harmful mutations occur at a rate of 1.6 mutations per person per generation.

This staggeringly high value has shocked and baffled evolutionists, because it means that theoretically humans should have become extinct by now!
illini319
Xipha wrote:
Yes a genetic mutation is a change from the norm, but there has never been an observed case of such a mutation adding information. The change occurs because DNA has been damaged or blocked, which often allows latent information that was already there to come through. It is not new genetic information, it is the emerging of already existing information. Generations later they may look dissimilar from each other because the same information is missing or rearranged. This still does not solve theproblem of how the information became encoded in thefirst place.

And how the flagella example proves evolution I don't see. Yes we have flagella material in us but that doesn't mean it evolved there. By observing a final state and a similar initial state, with no intermediate observation, you cannot extrapolate that into proof of evolution. You are certainly free to interperet it that way. And how it poses a problem for intelligent design I don't see either. It is no problem for an intellgent designer to use the same building blocks for different functions. (I must ask you what you think the intermediate "evolutionary" stages may have looked like and how they would have any function at all).

If evolution really occured there would be an incredible amount of mutations required, and somewhere along the line they would have to add genetic information, and so there should be many observable beneficial mutations that add information observable today. Not only have scientists not found a single case where information is added, 99% of mutations are harmful, there are a few neutral ones, and less than 1% that are beneficial (especially in the long term). Generally even when an organism goes through a beneficial mutation, it only affects short term survival, and has other weaknesses. (for example certain people are lacking a gene, and as a result are very insuceptible to Malaria, and this would appear to be a beneficial mutation, however these people overall are more sickly, phyically weaker, and generally die younger than most people.) So say an organism mutates through many generations over billions of years (lets just say that billions of years are available) If every generation there is 1 mutation then 99 generations will have bad mutations, every 100th generation there will be a neutral or beneficial mutation. Now not all of these bad mutations are immediately fatal, and some are latent and do not appear until generations later. So when you occasionally do get a good mutation it is mixed in with many many bad mutations, which will continue to ge passed down. So as time goes on the organism gets more and more bad mutations which will affect its survival, and even the occasional good one (especially if each mutation is as small as evolutionists claim they are) will not greatly increase the chance of survival anyways. So essentially time becomes evolutions enemy, because the more time that passes the more bad mutations and genetic corruption and noise becomes part of this organisms DNA. And yet scientists try to tell us that an organism gets better over time. And still remains the problem of how genetic information gets added in the first place remains a mystery to evolutionists. There are lots of little peices of the evolutionary theory which seem plausible at first, but when you look at the big picture it takes a lot of faith to believe in molecule to man evolution.


No faith is required to believe evolution. Evolution is not believed. Perhaps it is this which is most confusing. Evolution is observed. You repeatedly fail to understand the nature of mutations and genetic drift. How do you bias your examples that most mutations are bad? Where is your evidence? Evolutionarily speaking, most mutations are neutral as most mutations are not germline. Hence, 'weaker' mutations are the ones that are usually propagated. And these may never be seen phenotypically since many of them are recessive. Environmental and genetic conditions are CONSTANTLY being selected for. It doesn't take some cataclysmic event for these to occur.
At an organismal level, there are three major categories of mutation. Hypomorphic, hypermorphic, and neomorphic. Ones that reduce function (hypo-) and increase function (hyper-) are generally thought to result in the attenuation or hyperactivation of a particular gene. In essence they are still doing the same function they originally did, except at a slower or faster pace. Neomorphic mutations are ones in which the mutation causes such change that they result in a previously unseen function and resulting phenotype. Shall I cite the hundreds, if not thousands, of primary publications existing in PubMed to support my claim? This is not LATENT information. If you mean that the protein is still made up of the same amino acids... then of course. But even that is not necessarily true.
Genetic amplification has occured so many times in genetic history it's so easy to find at a genomic level these days. Amplification is when a single gene is accidentally copied and now the resulting organism has double the number of the same gene as its parents. Eventually these twin genes may diverge in function. Homeotic genes are this way; as are globin, zinc-finger transcription factors, erythropoetic... blah blah blah. LOTS. These have all come from a multiplying of single genes... and now the results are so diverse.
Punctuated equilibrium refers to a type of evolution in which high environmental stress can cause organisms to hypermutate and hence have an increased chance of adaptability within a short period of time. Population bottlenecks are one example of this. Because of the reduced gene pool, many recessive genes become homozygous resulting in an increased frequence of previously unseen phenotypes to occur. Many of these are generally not good... tay-sachs, cystic-fibrosis, sickle cell... etc. But over many generations, they provide a level of advantage previously unseen in earlier generations.
I don't intend to address your confusion on how flagella does NOT support evolution or shows an inconsistency in ID theory. I doubt any clarification on my part will do any good. Perhaps you will find what you are looking for in websites that have genesis in their addresses.
todabeat
Listen, I recently got into relgion for 18 years i was an athiest.
I am 19 my family have been into 'santeria, yoruba, locumi, whatever you want to call it. And i feel in love. There really isn't rule or a bible type for this religion. It's prqacticly 'the catholic' relogion but evolved in africa. There is a awesome system to tell the future with 'coconut, and sea shells' i just got back from cuba i was babtised and my mother on the religion is 'yemaya' it's very interesting there is a lot to learn

when it comes to god, if you think about it. every one calls it a higher callin thing. i onced talked to some 'jehova witnesses' and told them i believe that god was an 'alien' and i mean like and 'alien' aliean like from outer space they freaked out and told me i nwas the devil and they left. but it could be that extraterrestial life left a seed here on earth that made us what we are. But i guess we will know on 'judgement day'
Reaper
todabeat wrote:
when it comes to god, if you think about it. every one calls it a higher callin thing. i onced talked to some 'jehova witnesses' and told them i believe that god was an 'alien' and i mean like and 'alien' aliean like from outer space they freaked out and told me i nwas the devil and they left. but it could be that extraterrestial life left a seed here on earth that made us what we are. But i guess we will know on 'judgement day'

Yes this prove's a valid point here, people who come to your door step and try to shove their religion down your throat and then flip out when you share your ideas with them cannot possibly be normal or healthy. The jehova witnesses very name is a joke really.... we witness things on a daily basis and they cannot witness what they have not seen.... and if you are one of these people who have seen god or in this case jehova himself, well i suggest you talk to your doctor at once because seeing things isn't and never will be a good sign for your mental health. Now I can't find a link that explains what there namesake is but im going to assume it means that they witnessed jehovah's birth or ressurection or being alive, or somthing else along those lines.
FriBogdan
there are some things science can't explain but i prefer it. The religion... well...with time i accepting it less.
Xipha
Because I do not have a doctorate in DNA and whatever, allow me to quote two scientists who have already debated over whether these observaions prove evolution or not, or if they are merely interpreted as proof of evolution. I must ask, do any of your hundreds and thousands of publications actually have data where they observe the duplication, mutation of these genes to perform a new function? Or are they simply showing that there are duplicates of genes, and genes that are different, but slightly similar which perform different functions. If the latter is the case it would hardly prove evolution. But I will now allow you to read a more educated opinion than mine:

Quote:
Gene Families as Examples of Duplication, Mutation and Selection
Max: A commonly cited observation consistent with the Neo-Darwinian model of evolution is that in the DNA of humans we find many genes with similar sequences that have similar function, yet play distinct physiological roles. The multiple globin genes are an example I cite in my essay. Frequently genes with similar sequences are found in more primitive organisms, but in these the family of related genes is much smaller. The evolutionary interpretation is that the last common ancestor of humans and the primitive modern species had a smaller genome than modern humans and that as the human lineage evolved, there were multiple gene duplications which generated extra copies that mutated independently and evolved to take on slightly different functions. Spetner, of course, does not accept this scenario. I begin this exchange with my description of such a gene system.
[LMS: SCENARIOS ARE NOT PART OF THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD. THEY ARE NOT USED IN ANY BRANCH OF SCIENCE, WITH THE SOLE EXCEPTION OF EVOLUTION.]
Let’s consider a gene locus that I have studied in my lab: the human immunoglobulin heavy chain (or IgH) locus. In the human locus one sees evidence of a large DNA duplication that created two copies that are highly similar in both coding and non-coding flanking regions. One duplicate includes constant region sequences known as gamma3, gamma1, pseudo-epsilon and alpha1, while the second copy contains gamma2, gamma4, epsilon and alpha2. More primitive primates like the New World monkeys appear to have a single copy of this locus and a single gamma gene. The four human gamma chain genes are thus thought to have derived from a single ancestral gamma chain gene in a primate ancestor by a series of duplications and mutations. The four kinds of antibody proteins encoded by the human genes serve very similar functions, but they are not identical. They differ from one another in their “effector functions” such as their ability to activate serum complement proteins or to bind the various Fc receptors on cells of the immune system. For example, antibodies with gamma2 protein work best for recognizing polysaccharide antigens found on certain bacteria, while gamma4 antibodies work best for fighting parasites. Presumably the single ancestral gamma gene was not specialized and had to serve as a “jack-of-all-trades.” If you were to consider the mutations of that gene that led to the specialized function
[LMS: MAX MEANS, OF COURSE, HYPOTHETICAL MUTATIONS THAT HE POSTULATES TO HAVE LED TO SUCH FUNCTIONS.]
of the polysaccharide-binding gamma2 protein you could probably argue for “loss of information” in that, by mutating from primordial gamma, the protein may have “lost specificity” for battling parasite infestation; and if you looked at the mutations that led to the “parasite specialist” gamma4 protein, you could argue for “loss of information” in that the protein may have “lost specificity” for binding to polysaccharides. If you put on blinders and looked at one gene at a time you could make your argument that both genes “lost information,” but if you look at the whole picture you see that there is a gain in information for the whole system. In the ancestral primate we had one non-specialized gene whereas in modern humans we have four specialized genes.
[LMS: MAX IS, OF COURSE, MAKING ALL THIS UP ABOUT ME OR ANYONE ELSE ARGUING FOR A LOSS OF INFORMATION IN THE CHANGE HE IS HYPOTHESIZING HERE. IF SOMETHING LIKE WHAT HE SUGGESTED WERE INDEED TO HAVE HAPPENED, INFORMATION WOULD HAVE BEEN GAINED, AND I WOULD NOT, AS HE WOULD LIKE ME TO DO, SUGGEST THAT INFORMATION WOULD HAVE BEEN LOST. HIS PROBLEM IS THAT HE IS UNABLE TO SHOW THAT SUCH A CHANGE OCCURRED; IT IS ONLY A CONJECTURE. MORE IMPORTANT, HE IS INCAPABLE OF SHOWING THAT SUCH CHANGES COULD HAVE OCCURRED IN STEPS OF SINGLE-NUCLEOTIDE SUBSTITUTIONS IN WHICH EACH MUTATION HAD A POSITIVE SELECTIVE VALUE.]
This is exactly the sort of genetic change that would be consistent with Neo-Darwinian evolution leading to an increase in complexity. In your newspaper example it corresponds to having both the early and the final edition of today’s paper. A merchant who makes a little money on each transaction can certainly make a bundle if he works long enough at it.

Spetner: Yes, information would have been increased if what you speculate had indeed happened. The proof would only lie in showing that it has indeed happened. Let us not lose sight of the requirement of Neo-Darwinian evolution for long series of single-nucleotide substitutions, where each mutation makes the phenotype sufficiently more adaptive than it was to permit the mutated phenotype to take over the population through natural selection with a high probability. It is far from clear that the individual mutations you suggest will each be adaptive and selected at each step. You cannot show this - you merely assume it. You are postulating an historical event that cannot possibly be verified. It seems that all of your arguments are based on postulating events that are inherently not observable. That should make one a little suspicious of the theory, shouldn’t it?

Max: I realize that the above model for the human IgH locus is hypothetical and assumes that the evolutionary triad of duplication, random mutation and selection is a reasonable naturalistic explanation for the four human gamma genes. We cannot verify this explanation since we can never know the properties of the primordial ancestral gamma immunoglobulin, or know the series of mutations that occurred in the various duplicate gamma genes during our evolution from that primordial ancestor. What I am asking is: is there anything so implausible in this model to justify your suggestion that we should “dismiss Neo-Darwinian theory” as an explanation for this example?

Spetner: Yes, it is implausible because you are postulating a series of events of a type for which there is evidence that they have not occurred. If they had occurred to produce Evolution A, there should have been a vast number of them, and there aren’t. Not one unequivocal mutation has been observed. Had there been the required large number of them, we should have seen some of them in all the genetic experiments performed in all the laboratories of the world. And we haven’t, to my knowledge, seen a single one.


For more of this debate see: http://www.trueorigin.org/spetner2.asp
illini319
Xipha wrote:
Because I do not have a doctorate in DNA and whatever, allow me to quote two scientists who have already debated over whether these observaions prove evolution or not, or if they are merely interpreted as proof of evolution. I must ask, do any of your hundreds and thousands of publications actually have data where they observe the duplication, mutation of these genes to perform a new function? Or are they simply showing that there are duplicates of genes, and genes that are different, but slightly similar which perform different functions. If the latter is the case it would hardly prove evolution. But I will now allow you to read a more educated opinion than mine:

Quote:
Gene Families as Examples of Duplication, Mutation and Selection
Max: A commonly cited observation consistent with the Neo-Darwinian model of evolution is that in the DNA of humans we find many genes with similar sequences that have similar function, yet play distinct physiological roles. The multiple globin genes are an example I cite in my essay. Frequently genes with similar sequences are found in more primitive organisms, but in these the family of related genes is much smaller. The evolutionary interpretation is that the last common ancestor of humans and the primitive modern species had a smaller genome than modern humans and that as the human lineage evolved, there were multiple gene duplications which generated extra copies that mutated independently and evolved to take on slightly different functions. Spetner, of course, does not accept this scenario. I begin this exchange with my description of such a gene system.
[LMS: SCENARIOS ARE NOT PART OF THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD. THEY ARE NOT USED IN ANY BRANCH OF SCIENCE, WITH THE SOLE EXCEPTION OF EVOLUTION.]
Let’s consider a gene locus that I have studied in my lab: the human immunoglobulin heavy chain (or IgH) locus. In the human locus one sees evidence of a large DNA duplication that created two copies that are highly similar in both coding and non-coding flanking regions. One duplicate includes constant region sequences known as gamma3, gamma1, pseudo-epsilon and alpha1, while the second copy contains gamma2, gamma4, epsilon and alpha2. More primitive primates like the New World monkeys appear to have a single copy of this locus and a single gamma gene. The four human gamma chain genes are thus thought to have derived from a single ancestral gamma chain gene in a primate ancestor by a series of duplications and mutations. The four kinds of antibody proteins encoded by the human genes serve very similar functions, but they are not identical. They differ from one another in their “effector functions” such as their ability to activate serum complement proteins or to bind the various Fc receptors on cells of the immune system. For example, antibodies with gamma2 protein work best for recognizing polysaccharide antigens found on certain bacteria, while gamma4 antibodies work best for fighting parasites. Presumably the single ancestral gamma gene was not specialized and had to serve as a “jack-of-all-trades.” If you were to consider the mutations of that gene that led to the specialized function
[LMS: MAX MEANS, OF COURSE, HYPOTHETICAL MUTATIONS THAT HE POSTULATES TO HAVE LED TO SUCH FUNCTIONS.]
of the polysaccharide-binding gamma2 protein you could probably argue for “loss of information” in that, by mutating from primordial gamma, the protein may have “lost specificity” for battling parasite infestation; and if you looked at the mutations that led to the “parasite specialist” gamma4 protein, you could argue for “loss of information” in that the protein may have “lost specificity” for binding to polysaccharides. If you put on blinders and looked at one gene at a time you could make your argument that both genes “lost information,” but if you look at the whole picture you see that there is a gain in information for the whole system. In the ancestral primate we had one non-specialized gene whereas in modern humans we have four specialized genes.
[LMS: MAX IS, OF COURSE, MAKING ALL THIS UP ABOUT ME OR ANYONE ELSE ARGUING FOR A LOSS OF INFORMATION IN THE CHANGE HE IS HYPOTHESIZING HERE. IF SOMETHING LIKE WHAT HE SUGGESTED WERE INDEED TO HAVE HAPPENED, INFORMATION WOULD HAVE BEEN GAINED, AND I WOULD NOT, AS HE WOULD LIKE ME TO DO, SUGGEST THAT INFORMATION WOULD HAVE BEEN LOST. HIS PROBLEM IS THAT HE IS UNABLE TO SHOW THAT SUCH A CHANGE OCCURRED; IT IS ONLY A CONJECTURE. MORE IMPORTANT, HE IS INCAPABLE OF SHOWING THAT SUCH CHANGES COULD HAVE OCCURRED IN STEPS OF SINGLE-NUCLEOTIDE SUBSTITUTIONS IN WHICH EACH MUTATION HAD A POSITIVE SELECTIVE VALUE.]
This is exactly the sort of genetic change that would be consistent with Neo-Darwinian evolution leading to an increase in complexity. In your newspaper example it corresponds to having both the early and the final edition of today’s paper. A merchant who makes a little money on each transaction can certainly make a bundle if he works long enough at it.

Spetner: Yes, information would have been increased if what you speculate had indeed happened. The proof would only lie in showing that it has indeed happened. Let us not lose sight of the requirement of Neo-Darwinian evolution for long series of single-nucleotide substitutions, where each mutation makes the phenotype sufficiently more adaptive than it was to permit the mutated phenotype to take over the population through natural selection with a high probability. It is far from clear that the individual mutations you suggest will each be adaptive and selected at each step. You cannot show this - you merely assume it. You are postulating an historical event that cannot possibly be verified. It seems that all of your arguments are based on postulating events that are inherently not observable. That should make one a little suspicious of the theory, shouldn’t it?

Max: I realize that the above model for the human IgH locus is hypothetical and assumes that the evolutionary triad of duplication, random mutation and selection is a reasonable naturalistic explanation for the four human gamma genes. We cannot verify this explanation since we can never know the properties of the primordial ancestral gamma immunoglobulin, or know the series of mutations that occurred in the various duplicate gamma genes during our evolution from that primordial ancestor. What I am asking is: is there anything so implausible in this model to justify your suggestion that we should “dismiss Neo-Darwinian theory” as an explanation for this example?

Spetner: Yes, it is implausible because you are postulating a series of events of a type for which there is evidence that they have not occurred. If they had occurred to produce Evolution A, there should have been a vast number of them, and there aren’t. Not one unequivocal mutation has been observed. Had there been the required large number of them, we should have seen some of them in all the genetic experiments performed in all the laboratories of the world. And we haven’t, to my knowledge, seen a single one.


For more of this debate see: http://www.trueorigin.org/spetner2.asp



Let me generalize my last statement from my previous post to include all sites that are so OBVIOUSLY biased...
trueorigin.org???? do you seriously think such a site takes a careful and objective look at this debate? try again. A conversation between two people, doctors or not, does not balance the THOUSANDS of publications already existing out there. You're contention that one cannot observe evolution literally happening in a tube is an oversight of one of the most often underappreciated dimensions of evolution: TIME.
Evolution does not occur within one generation. It occurs over many generations... i.e. time. If you would like to observe evolution at a faster pace, examine organisms which have short generation times. How do you explain antibiotic resistance?
OnlyOneLife
HAHA, I don't believe in religion, I believe religion was made up by some poeple who wanted power and a way to control people better! ;P
Xipha
Quote:
Here's how it works. In a given population of bacteria, many genes are present which express themselves in a variety of ways. In a natural environment, the genes (and traits) are freely mixed. When exposed to an antibiotic, most of the microbes die. But some, through a fortuitous genetic recombination, possess a resistance to the antibiotic. They are the only ones to reproduce, and their descendants inherit the same genetic resistance. Over time, virtually all possess this resistance. Thus the population has lost the ability to produce individuals with a sensitivity to the antibiotic. No new genetic information was produced; indeed, genetic information was lost.

A new line of research has produced tantalizing results. Evidently, when stressed, some microbes go into a mutation mode, rapidly producing a variety of strains, thereby increasing the odds that some will survive the stress. This has produced some interesting areas for speculation by creationists, but it still mitigates against evolution. There is a tremendous scope of genetic potential already present in a cell, but E. coli bacteria before stress and mutation remain E. coli. Minor change has taken place, but not true evolution.

Furthermore, it has been proven that resistance to many modern antibiotics was present decades before their discovery. In 1845, sailors on an ill-fated Arctic expedition were buried in the permafrost and remained deeply frozen until their bodies were exhumed in 1986. Preservation was so complete that six strains of nineteenth-century bacteria found dormant in the contents of the sailors' intestines were able to be revived! When tested, these bacteria were found to possess resistance to several modern-day antibiotics, including penicillin. Such traits were obviously present prior to penicillin's discovery, and thus could not be an evolutionary development.**

Here's the point. Mutations, adaptation, variation, diversity, population shifts, etc., all occur, but, these are not macroevolutionary changes.




Quote:
The issue is not whether bacteria develop resistance to antibiotics through alterations in their genetic material. They do. The issue is whether or not such resistance helps the evolutionists’ case. We suggest that it does not, for the following reasons.

First, the mutations responsible for antibiotic resistance in bacteria do not arise as a result of the “need” of the organisms. Futumya has noted: “...the adaptive ‘needs’ of the species do not increase the likelihood that an adaptive mutation will occur; mutations are not directed toward the adaptive needs of the moment.... Mutations have causes, but the species’ need to adapt isn’t one of them” (1983, pp. 137,138). What does this mean? Simply put, bacteria did not “mutate” after being exposed to antibiotics; the mutations conferring the resistance were present in the bacterial population even prior to the discovery or use of the antibiotics. The Lederbergs’ experiments in 1952 on streptomycin-resistant bacteria showed that bacteria which had never been exposed to the antibiotic already possessed the mutations responsible for the resistance. Malcolm Bowden has observed: “What is interesting is that bacterial cultures from bodies frozen 140 years ago were found to be resistant to antibiotics that were developed 100 years later. Thus the specific chemical needed for resistance was inherent in the bacteria” (1991, p. 56). These bacteria did not mutate to become resistant to antibiotics. Furthermore, the non-resistant varieties did not become resistant due to mutations.

Second, while pre-existing mutations may confer antibiotic resistance, such mutations may also decrease an organism’s viability. For example, “the surviving strains are usually less virulent, and have a reduced metabolism and so grow more slowly. This is hardly a recommendation for ‘improving the species by competition’ (i.e., survival of the fittest)” (Bowden, 1991, p. 56). Just because a mutation provides an organism with a certain trait does not mean that the organism as a whole has been helped. For example, in the disease known as sickle-cell anemia (caused by a mutation), people who are “carriers” of the disease do not die from it and are resistant to malaria, which at first would seem to be an excellent example of a good mutation. However, that is not the entire story. While resistant to malaria, these people do not possess the stamina of, and do not live as long as, their non-carrier counterparts. Bacteria may be resistant to a certain antibiotic, but that resistance comes at a price. Thus, in the grand scheme of things, acquiring resistance does not lead necessarily to new species or types of organisms.

Third, regardless of how bacteria acquired their antibiotic resistance (i.e., by mutation, conjugation, or by transposition), they are still exactly the same bacteria after receiving that trait as they were before receiving it. The “evolution” is not vertical macroevolution but horizontal microevolution (i.e., adaptation). In other words, these bacteria “...are still the same bacteria and of the same type, being only a variety that differs from the normal in its resistance to the antibiotic. No new ‘species’ have been produced” (Bowden, 1991, p. 56). In commenting on the changing, or sharing, of genetic material, ReMine has suggested: “It has not allowed bacteria to arbitrarily swap major innovations such as the use of chlorophyll or flagella. The major features of microorganisms fall into well-defined groups that seem to have a nested pattern like the rest of life” (1993, p. 404).

Microbiologists have studied extensively two genera of bacteria in their attempts to understand antibiotic resistance: Escherichia and Salmonella. In speaking about Escherichia in an evolutionary context, France’s renowned zoologist, Pierre-Paul Grassé, observed:

...bacteria, despite their great production of intraspecific varieties, exhibit a great fidelity to their species. The bacillus Escherichia coli, whose mutants have been studied very carefully, is the best example. The reader will agree that it is surprising, to say the least, to want to prove evolution and to discover its mechanisms and then to choose as a material for this study a being which practically stabilized a billion years ago (1977, p. 87).
Although E. coli allegedly has undergone a billion years’ worth of mutations, it still has remained “stabilized” in its “nested pattern.” While mutations and DNA transposition have caused change within the bacterial population, those changes have occurred within narrow limits. No long-term, large-scale evolution has occurred.


CONCLUSION
The suggestion that the development in bacteria of resistance to antibiotics as a result of genetic mutations or DNA transposition somehow “proves” organic evolution is flawed. Macroevolution requires change across phylogenetic boundaries. In the case of antibiotic-resistant bacteria, that has not occurred.
http://www.apologeticspress.org/modules.php?name=Read&cat=1&itemid=439

Let me bring up the same point I brought up with Reaper. Just because a site supports the Bible, Genesis, God, creation or other such things does not mean that it is not objective. Organizations such as Answers in Genesis, True Origin, Institute for Creation Research and others have trained, knowledgeable scientists with good credentials working for them. The names of the sites and organizations bound to have names that mention the Bible, Genesis, God and other such things because these are the things they are based on. They start with presuppositions that are different from those of evolutionists and you. You may see creationist references as biased just because you refuse to even consider the possibility that they could be right, however by your definition Evolutionist sites and such are just as "biased" to me because they start with different presuppositions that I do not believe, however this does not mean that I can say "Oh theyre wrong just because they are evolutionists" i still have to take the information seriously whether I agree with it or not (Although I am free to offer an alternate interpretation of the data they present). Because all the observations we make are in the present and the interpretations are about the past, even evolutionists cannot be truly objective. Unless someone actually observes a true evolutionary change that adds information there is no proof of evolution. You fall back on a typical evolutionist argument "Given enough time anything is possible". I have given an interpretation of antibiotic resistance. It does not hold proof of molecule-to-man evolution. Now if I may ask an evolutionists interpretation in return, of how the first self replicating organism may have come into existence? Keep in mind the incredible complexity required. "A typical cell contains thousands and thousands of different types of proteins. Assembled from amino acids in chains "anywhere from 50 to 1000 amino acids" long, proteins fold up into "very precise" three-dimensional structures—and those structures determine their precise functions". Now even evolutionists have acknowledged the infinitesimally small probability of even a single protein occuring naturally, much less thousands and thousands of them and all in the correct places. Some evolutionists argue, "We are here so it must have happened", or "With enough time anything is possible". So the majority of scientists accept and base their entire belief on something which had a very very slight chance of actually occuring, and yet deny even the possibility of the existence of an intelligent designer. Why? That is probably more in the field of psychology. However I choose not to put my trust in fallible scientists just because "most educated people believe in evolution" (fallacy of consensus gentium). Instead I base my thinking on the Bible as the Word of God, and when looking at the scientific data through a biblical perspective it still makes sense, so there is no scientific reason not to. You are free to continue interpreting the information as "proof of evolution". However keep in mind that there is another scientifically valid (though less popular (at least among scientists)) interpretation of the facts. Maybe you have heard the saying "Don't judge a book by its cover". Well maybe next time you can judge by the content, not the name.
Preacher
"How do you explain antibiotic resistance?"

You're sitting in your favorite chair, your leg begins to go numb. What do you do? You move it. Did a change occur? Did you become more comfortable in your surroundings? Yes and Yes. Did you evolve? No. You saw a problem and you fixed it plain and simple.

What does a child do when it doesn't like something? He either fixes the problem Himself, or makes a fuss until his parents do. Did his situation change for the better? Yes. Did he evolve? No.

The simple fact is that human beings are intelligent enough to adapt to changing environment. Individual systems adapt to change. If you're cold what do you do? You use that large thing between your ears (and I don't mean your nose) and you put on a sweater! is a sweater a form of evolution? I didn't think so. If you are a firm believer that systems in the human body can, in fact, change their function in order to adapt to changing surroundings I would like to propose an experiment. You will need a stopwatch and ten female volunteers.

Take your ten volunteers and lock them inside a facility capable of sustaining life. Once they are inside, start the timer. There is, obviously, a problem with the population. They cannot reproduce. According to the theory of evolution, this population should be able to evolve to meet the needs of the population. So, watch for a while and stop the timer when one of them grows a penis.

As much as it may sound like it, I am not trying to mock or belittle you. I am simply stating the facts that I have observed. The so called "evolution" of mankind has been due to furtherance of knowledge and pure common sense! That's why the Inuit wear parkas and the Hawaiians wear silk T-shirts.

On the subject of genetics and DNA, I must say that mankind sure has become very proud of itself since we've been able to tinker with the genetic code of a fruit fly. We have used up years of our lives and countless dollars in research over the years to better understand genetics and DNA. We have even learned how to disect the genetic code of these tiny creatures and remove certain genes in order to change the flie's characteristics. But before we get carried away with the champagne party here, let me point out one small detail...IT'S A FRUIT FLY!!! Men and women have devoted their lives to the research and developement of this technology and all we've got to show for it is a fly, about the size of a mustard seed, that's been specially bred to have only one wing or maybe a missing leg. That said, I am not one of those researchers and I have nothing but respect for them. This post is not to belittle those scientists or the work that they have chosen. It is simply a message saying that we have barely scratched the surface in this area and people are trying to take this grain of information and turn it into 'proof' or 'observation' of evolution. We cannot create chromosomes, we cannot add information to the genetic code with anydegree of effect, we can't even begin to explain the complexities of the simplest systems in the human body. And we are asked to believe that it all happened by accident. Some people find it very hard to believe that a God exists and, to be honest, I can't see why.
Multitudes of scientists and researchers have no problem believing that the human body could have developed from a steaming pile of ooz or an asteroid or a big bang, even aliens have been suggested as a possible beginning of mankind. Can I ask a frank question? Why is mankind so terrified that there just might be a power out there greater than us? I don't want research or theories from either side I just want to know one solid, undeniable fact that says mankind is the most intelligent force in the universe. And once you've found that we can talk more about your three-legged fruit fly.


Thank you for your time and God bless
-A friend
Jeremy
It is a pit hard when you are studing science with outer space and what happened billions, trillions of years ago. When you are teaching students at school about science it is kind of hard since it bring up religoin. For example the big bang happened and some religion my say that is just appear. Another example is people don't believe in dinsoaras because it is not in the chirtan bible. So it is really hard to talk about science and religion. Scinece my say one thing and you may not want to believe that because of your religion.
todabeat
I guess we will know once the time machine is ready to go.
snjripp
It is too bad that science has been placed verses religion. There are many levels to this debate, the evolutionism verses creationism is actually a good example. There are gaps in the evolutionary process as the fish went to dry land and became the human. Darwin found some biologic structures to be too exceptional to be the result of evolution (the eye of an octopus or squid, I forget at this moment).

On the other hand, we can frame the discussion as science verses religion, instead of the assumed science verses god. One could argue that those who get caught up in the debate too heavily have taken either science or religion as their god. Exclamation

The creation story found in Gen 1:1ff is followed closely by a different creation story that is in direct contradiction to the first. One begins over a void, or water. The second begins in the desert. These stories are about a truth that is at a different level than a literal reading. They are myths. Myths have element of truth and tell stories of things that are not explainable or able to be mapped. What would the story of evolution sound like to the ears of a Hebrew scribe in 587 BCE? The story is of something deeper than the words.

So, I agree with the first response. They are not muturally exclusive.
hangnhu
while I love to discusse social issues regarding these two subject, I don't think you guys wanna read, since it likely that you will fall asleep

man, I only been away for a bit and this forum stretches to seven pages

anyway snjripp science isn't place to verse religion, it men that done this, and you know back then, the men world or even now (the equal world) winners always write history and people will always listen to the winner, since they stands out, the loser do at the beginning but eventually people will forget them (I'm sure u rather tell a bedtime story of a winning hero, than some losers to your children rite? and this gets pass on), so back them someone decide to diss science over religion, and when science wins back, the battle remains (this will carries on for ever, after all untill all human on earth becomes openminded enough to understand and accept both and all other things too), we shall have to wait for peace.

you get what i'm saying?
windval
it is difficult to say~~

but i believe in god ~
mele
While my family is generally strong believers in God, including myself, I tend to look into science a lot more then religion. While I do belive in god, I don't like to be kept in dark I guess, so I turn to scinece very often. I will always take scientific explanation over religious one.
benwhite
Preacher wrote:
"How do you explain antibiotic resistance?"

You're sitting in your favorite chair, your leg begins to go numb. What do you do? You move it. Did a change occur? Did you become more comfortable in your surroundings? Yes and Yes. Did you evolve? No. You saw a problem and you fixed it plain and simple.

What does a child do when it doesn't like something? He either fixes the problem Himself, or makes a fuss until his parents do. Did his situation change for the better? Yes. Did he evolve? No.

The simple fact is that human beings are intelligent enough to adapt to changing environment. Individual systems adapt to change. If you're cold what do you do? You use that large thing between your ears (and I don't mean your nose) and you put on a sweater! is a sweater a form of evolution? I didn't think so. If you are a firm believer that systems in the human body can, in fact, change their function in order to adapt to changing surroundings I would like to propose an experiment. You will need a stopwatch and ten female volunteers.

Take your ten volunteers and lock them inside a facility capable of sustaining life. Once they are inside, start the timer. There is, obviously, a problem with the population. They cannot reproduce. According to the theory of evolution, this population should be able to evolve to meet the needs of the population. So, watch for a while and stop the timer when one of them grows a penis.

As much as it may sound like it, I am not trying to mock or belittle you. I am simply stating the facts that I have observed. The so called "evolution" of mankind has been due to furtherance of knowledge and pure common sense! That's why the Inuit wear parkas and the Hawaiians wear silk T-shirts.

On the subject of genetics and DNA, I must say that mankind sure has become very proud of itself since we've been able to tinker with the genetic code of a fruit fly. We have used up years of our lives and countless dollars in research over the years to better understand genetics and DNA. We have even learned how to disect the genetic code of these tiny creatures and remove certain genes in order to change the flie's characteristics. But before we get carried away with the champagne party here, let me point out one small detail...IT'S A FRUIT FLY!!! Men and women have devoted their lives to the research and developement of this technology and all we've got to show for it is a fly, about the size of a mustard seed, that's been specially bred to have only one wing or maybe a missing leg. That said, I am not one of those researchers and I have nothing but respect for them. This post is not to belittle those scientists or the work that they have chosen. It is simply a message saying that we have barely scratched the surface in this area and people are trying to take this grain of information and turn it into 'proof' or 'observation' of evolution. We cannot create chromosomes, we cannot add information to the genetic code with anydegree of effect, we can't even begin to explain the complexities of the simplest systems in the human body. And we are asked to believe that it all happened by accident. Some people find it very hard to believe that a God exists and, to be honest, I can't see why.
Multitudes of scientists and researchers have no problem believing that the human body could have developed from a steaming pile of ooz or an asteroid or a big bang, even aliens have been suggested as a possible beginning of mankind. Can I ask a frank question? Why is mankind so terrified that there just might be a power out there greater than us? I don't want research or theories from either side I just want to know one solid, undeniable fact that says mankind is the most intelligent force in the universe. And once you've found that we can talk more about your three-legged fruit fly.


Thank you for your time and God bless
-A friend


That's not how evolution works nor is it even close to an explanation for antibiotic resistance. Mankinds ability to use cognitive reason to adapt doesn't work. Resistance isn't a willfull change bacteria make to be happier. It's really important in a debate between competing theories to be adequetly familiar with the theory you hope to debunk.

As mentioned above, you might not be able to prove either theory, but you can find evidence in support of evolution. While not provable, there has been a slew or supporting evidence and less contrary evidence. There can be no evidence for creationism. Also, Any bit of info or fact that doesn't support evolution doesn't automatically support creationism. If you have two choices, one doesn't have to be right. It's more likely, given findings, that evidence against evolution requires tinkering to the theory or further study--not simply the advocation of the theoretical reverse that is creationism.
charliehk
This is just a question (not trying to offense anyone): does Bible mention anything showing that Reincarnation is nonsense?

DizzyThermal wrote:
I am Chrisitian... I believe God created the earth for more that just faith.... I have read some books on near death experiences and read up on so crazy things that people experience... I think it's scary how you can feel this warm feeling and you see a white flash... This probably means you are going somewhere else... and I absoluetly do not believe in Reincarnation... How can you die and basically "respawn" into another body... This world was created by God. He created the world in 7 days. If you seriously read the bible and get a basic understanding... Some information, though, may seem oblivious but most of it is interesting things that make you think... If you have questions about religion or how the earth was created. I would recommend on reading the Bible =D.
David_Pardy
The bible doesn't specify reincarnation, but it specifies what DOES happen - we die, we go to Heaven or Hell. Black and white. There is no grey area and reincarnation would fall into that area.
Xipha
Quote:
That's not how evolution works nor is it even close to an explanation for antibiotic resistance. Mankinds ability to use cognitive reason to adapt doesn't work. Resistance isn't a willfull change bacteria make to be happier. It's really important in a debate between competing theories to be adequetly familiar with the theory you hope to debunk.

As mentioned above, you might not be able to prove either theory, but you can find evidence in support of evolution. While not provable, there has been a slew or supporting evidence and less contrary evidence. There can be no evidence for creationism. Also, Any bit of info or fact that doesn't support evolution doesn't automatically support creationism. If you have two choices, one doesn't have to be right. It's more likely, given findings, that evidence against evolution requires tinkering to the theory or further study--not simply the advocation of the theoretical reverse that is creationism


Ok, if you've read what I said earlier there may be evidence that can be interpreted as supporting evolution but the same evidence can also be interpreted as supporting creation. It all depends what your starting assumptions are. It's like looking at the same thing through two different sets of glasses. I wont go deeper into this but if you read some of my previous posts you can pick up what I'm saying. Also there really are only two choices: either we were made or we were not made. So scientists will continue interpreting the data until they come up with an explanation that fits in with their theory, but there is more than one way that data can be interpreted. Personally I think there are many questions that the evolution and the big bang theory will never be able to answer. I find the Bible has a much more solid foundation and science agrees with Genesis when you look at the data through biblical glasses. Unfortunately most scientists are not willing to put on these glasses, so they continue trying to prove existence of the universe without a higher power, without even acknowledging the possibility that they could be wrong.
kam311
Here's how I see it: Science and religion should co-exists and agree in some sort of logical way.
Therefore: Did the universe have a beginning?
If it did, was created by something or someone?
Given the natural order in the universe, I can't understand how it could just be a random occurence. So if it's by someone, who are they? Wouldn't this be God?
David_Pardy
Xipha - well said.

Karn - Science DOES co-exist with having faith. God created the laws of science which control how this world works - He created Gravity, He created everything that dictates literally 'how the world goes round'.

I'm pretty sure that all members of Answers in Genesis have at least one University degree in a field of science, and some have many qualifications. Several of them became Christians when they actually set out to disprove Creation.
pallida_mors
Geez, this arguement again....

Thanks, agnosticism. Laughing

Dan Brown's Angels and Demons somehow broaden my understanding about these kinds of curiosities...try reading it too. Vetra trying to merge Science and Religion..cool.
Reaper
kam311 wrote:
Here's how I see it: Science and religion should co-exists and agree in some sort of logical way.
Therefore: Did the universe have a beginning?
If it did, was created by something or someone?
Given the natural order in the universe, I can't understand how it could just be a random occurence. So if it's by someone, who are they? Wouldn't this be God?

Science can never co-exist with religion for one simple reason, to co-exist means to be in perfect balance with the other and unless you just skipped to this part of the discussion you can plainly see it is no where near as balanced as most people would like to think. Some of the mysterys that were taken as acts of god in the bible and various other religions have been proven to be acts of nature, hell we could probably re-create some of them too, so if its in OUR power to do it then whos to say some bloke back then didn't just use it to abuse His or Her powers or just realize that they could take advantage of some of some natural event in nature and say god gave him or her the power to do it just to shift the political balance or somthing like that in that persons time??
DarthSilus
I beleive science and religion can be seperated, and don't have to conflict.

Science ends where it no longer effeiciently functions. Religion ends where it no longer enlightens.

Science ends where God begins. After all, the Begining involves everything we know, from logic to passion, to hate to love, to water to fire, was in the begining, for it arose from it.
Therefore, something as simple as science can't tackle it.
Yet, for may ordinary things, something as abstract and elaborite as religion can't adequately explain it, let alone the details--nor is that the role of religion, because it isn't really enlightening any more.

That's my two cents.
illini319
Xipha wrote:
Quote:
That's not how evolution works nor is it even close to an explanation for antibiotic resistance. Mankinds ability to use cognitive reason to adapt doesn't work. Resistance isn't a willfull change bacteria make to be happier. It's really important in a debate between competing theories to be adequetly familiar with the theory you hope to debunk.

As mentioned above, you might not be able to prove either theory, but you can find evidence in support of evolution. While not provable, there has been a slew or supporting evidence and less contrary evidence. There can be no evidence for creationism. Also, Any bit of info or fact that doesn't support evolution doesn't automatically support creationism. If you have two choices, one doesn't have to be right. It's more likely, given findings, that evidence against evolution requires tinkering to the theory or further study--not simply the advocation of the theoretical reverse that is creationism


Ok, if you've read what I said earlier there may be evidence that can be interpreted as supporting evolution but the same evidence can also be interpreted as supporting creation. It all depends what your starting assumptions are. It's like looking at the same thing through two different sets of glasses. I wont go deeper into this but if you read some of my previous posts you can pick up what I'm saying. Also there really are only two choices: either we were made or we were not made. So scientists will continue interpreting the data until they come up with an explanation that fits in with their theory, but there is more than one way that data can be interpreted. Personally I think there are many questions that the evolution and the big bang theory will never be able to answer. I find the Bible has a much more solid foundation and science agrees with Genesis when you look at the data through biblical glasses. Unfortunately most scientists are not willing to put on these glasses, so they continue trying to prove existence of the universe without a higher power, without even acknowledging the possibility that they could be wrong.


If you've read my earlier posts on this thread, you would realize that I actually agree with what you are saying. Most scientists are also unwilling to realize that the idea of a higher power can exist, with the same fervor as the bible thumpers they ridicule. Many ascribe to atheism since, to them, a god doesn't exist. But, as I point out in an earlier post, many scientists who are atheists base their conclusions on a flawed logic (ironic as scientists pride themselves on sound reasoning). One cannot (dis)prove a God's existence when data doesn't exist.

You have a bone to pick with evolution; which I still cannot understand how you can't see how this is as close to explaining biodiversity as humans have ever come. Your counter-arguments are porous; it's not worth discussing (as you will remain in your camp despite anything I, or others, will say). But, this is a fixation on minutiae, is it not? Why can't evolution, even at the macroscopic level, be a part of religion? Why can't one realize that science and religion are both just tools of trying to explain the (currently) inexplicable? that both are just APPROXIMATIONS of the truth, and that BOTH are liable to inaccuracies?
fredbert
The way I see it . . .

(mono/poly/heno/etc)Theism = Some sort of faith based religion (faith there is supernatural)
Atheism = Some sort of faith based religion (faith there is no supernatural)
Agnosticism = Has no faith/Doesn't know
Some Agnostics = Some sort of faith based religion that things cannot be known. Shocked

Neither Theism nor Atheism has any proofs in any objective sort of way (things can not be proven to not exist).

Agree, Disagree?

Fredbert

ps-seems like this what is actually going on most of the time with the God vs Science discussion is a Theism vs Atheism discussion, I agree with way up poster that they are not mutually exclusive (Religion and Science).
gonzo
why not start a topic:

butter vs darkmatter

or

opera vs chainsmoking


Science does ask the questions that theology studies. That's not the role of science. Does that invalidate either?
omeration
I believe in God. I am a oneness pentecostal, does anyone know what that is?
Xipha
Quote:
You have a bone to pick with evolution; which I still cannot understand how you can't see how this is as close to explaining biodiversity as humans have ever come. Your counter-arguments are porous; it's not worth discussing (as you will remain in your camp despite anything I, or others, will say). But, this is a fixation on minutiae, is it not? Why can't evolution, even at the macroscopic level, be a part of religion? Why can't one realize that science and religion are both just tools of trying to explain the (currently) inexplicable? that both are just APPROXIMATIONS of the truth, and that BOTH are liable to inaccuracies?


I have a bone to pick with evolution simply because it is force fed to society in schools and is presented as fact by media, museums, and many other sources. People are free to believe what they want , but people should at least be told that evolution is not as rock solid as scientists would like them to believe, and that there are other theories out there. As for evolution explaining biodiversity, if it worked it would explain it, but creation explains it just as well. Afterall it offers an explanation right in Genesis, saying that God created the beasts and the birds according to their kind, and decreed that they should reproduce according to their kind. This fits with what we can observe today, so it is an equally good explanation of biodiversity. (Note that this does not say that adaptation and speciation due to a loss of genetic information are not possible, and in no way asserts the fixation of species.) Sure evolution explains biodiversity, but so does creation. As for evolution being a part of religion, many people have accepted this, but from my personal observations I cannot. First of all Christianity is a faith (I cannot speak for any other faith or religion, only my personal beliefs). At the center of this faith is Jesus, who died so that we may be forgiven. The point of christianity is not to explain where we came from. Creation is not the center of christianity but it is the foundation. If I were to accept the Bible as only approximations of truth then my faith would be ungrounded. I would be free to pick and choose what to accept from the Bible and what to reject as only an approximation or a metaphor etc. I would be worshiping a god of my own design. The Bible states very clearly that God created the world in 7 days. If I try to interperet this in some way that allows evolution to fit in it means I have destroyed the whole foundation of my faith. If God had wanted to create the world in billions of years he could have. And if he did why would he not say "Over many ages I shaped the world" or something like that? But he says "...And there was evening, and there was morning- the first day" (Genesis 1:3, NIV) If I choose to interpret this as a metaphor for evolution or as an approximation of truth I have removed the foundation of my faith for I am then free to interperet the entire Bible as I please including Jesus death and resurrection which is the center of Christianity. And if I choose to interperet that however I please there is no foundation left and I have a changing, unfixed faith of my own design. This is why I strongly believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible, and why evolution and Christianity do not fit together. An evolutionary interpretation of the Bible would put billions of years of death, suffering and destruction before the time of Adam, where in the Bible it states that these things were all the result of the original fall of man. My conclusion: Christianity and evolution are mutually exclusive. (Note that this does not say that religion and science are mutually exclusive, as science can be used to explain the world that God created. The Bible encourages us to ask questions about the world around us. What science cannot do is give a concrete explanation of the beginning. This is where it comes to a matter of personal interpretation.)
alkady
Now this is something interesting, I won't go too far with my comment since I already heard enough of this from a co-worker at work who firmly believes in religion. Elias, He annoying, Why? Just dont believe in god and he will be on your back until you change with hours of lectures and annoying things to say and when you give up, He will make sure you learn enough about god. This guys been on my back for sometime now.

But I still believe that religion is something that isnt solid. Back in the days you where told what to believe in and never to question what you where told without any solid proof of it. In thoses days they pratically torture you just for not believing in god.

Science on the other hand is solid, Everything is proven and you can question others without being tortured like in the old days.

Seems funny since its actually sinful to hurt others even if its in god's name.
Jack_Hammer
Surely if you don't believe in science you wouldn't know or believe in how a computer works?

After all a computer is made up of purely science,
Reaper
Yes jack_Hammer states a valid point, Computers along with other inventions are purely created from science and nothing else. There were people who saw these devices created and a human created them not some all powerless god.
The bible states that the universe was created in seven days yet the earth seems to be older then when it was created if you go by the bible's time table. Also if creatures were brought into this world all with a purpose when the world was created then how is it that new creatures that did not exist when the world was created possibly exist today?

Also I realize I said powerless god and I say this for a reason, If they do really exist to protect us and help us along then they have not been doing a very good job now have they? I guarantee you if every nuclear missle in the entire world launched no higher being would appear to stop them even though it would kill our entire kind along with every other animal and creature in our world.
Revolution
i myself believe thinking about these things is a huge waste of time, which could be why i love the song Pennywise - Waste of Time, you should read the lyrics to it sometime

"Seems like a tragic waste of time
Who cares what happens when you die?
Life's too short to wonder why
Get on with your life"
ee82hl
God is not related to any religion, christianity is classified as a religion because it is so in the secular context.

Christian is a person who believe in Jesus who died for us and God who is the only true God.

Jesus did appear in History, its by faith that you believe He is the son of God. Its not a myth that He exist, it is a fact.

He said that God exist, He said that He is God. Do you believe Him?
A lot of people said that they do not believe God, but they do not know what they do not believe in, because they did not find out.

My urge is find out, so that you will at least know what you do not believe in.

I did, and can;t don;t believe, cause it is too real.
ee82hl
Quote:


i myself believe thinking about these things is a huge waste of time, which could be why i love the song Pennywise - Waste of Time, you should read the lyrics to it sometime

"Seems like a tragic waste of time
Who cares what happens when you die?
Life's too short to wonder why
Get on with your life"




God is not only about after you die...God is also about now.
So to get on with life...He is needed.
Look at the birds, they have no worries.
blake
I've heard the creation story too many times and every time it just sound more and more ridiculous. The Christian religion like many others has it's own version of how the earth and all those on it came about, and thousands of years ago it would have sounded pretty reasonable along with all their other theories about life. However, we have come to a point in time where we have science to explain things. We can observe the world around us and explain it with real facts and data. It's true that science doesn't explain everything, simply because those who use it are not advanced enough to look back billions of years and know exactly what happended. But at least it is possible with science.
Xipha
Quote:
Yes jack_Hammer states a valid point, Computers along with other inventions are purely created from science and nothing else. There were people who saw these devices created and a human created them not some all powerless god.
The bible states that the universe was created in seven days yet the earth seems to be older then when it was created if you go by the bible's time table. Also if creatures were brought into this world all with a purpose when the world was created then how is it that new creatures that did not exist when the world was created possibly exist today?

Also I realize I said powerless god and I say this for a reason, If they do really exist to protect us and help us along then they have not been doing a very good job now have they? I guarantee you if every nuclear missle in the entire world launched no higher being would appear to stop them even though it would kill our entire kind along with every other animal and creature in our world.


Yes computers were created with science, but all this proves is that humans have the ability to concieve an idea and use the materials at hand to make the idea into a physical form. After all the bible says we were created in God's image, so it makes sense that God would give us imagination and creativity and intelligence, since he has all of these things. So humans using science to make things just shows that intelligence + creativity results in new object. If you start with the presuppostition that there is no God then yes the earth appears to be old, but if you start with biblical presuppositions that there is a God, the evidence can also support a young earth. Again it all depends on the glasses you are looking through. Also, lets just say that you were God and you had designed a world that changes over time. Would you not also then build in mechanisms such as adaption and speciation to allow creatures to adapt to their environment over time? According to the Bible God created many kinds of animals and decreed that they should produce after their own kind. Now kind does not necissarily mean species, for there are many different species of cat in the feline group for example. It is quite possible that a more general kind was created and when the world changed (In the flood for example) causing drastically different environmental niches and then adaption begins to happen. You wrongly assume that creation implies the fixation of species, but it would not be a very intelligent thing to create fixed species on a changing world.

As to God not helping us, that is not true. But he did give humans free will and will not stop us from using it. All the bad things that happen we bring upon ourselves because it is our nature to commit wrongdoings. Again if you were God and you created a race of intelligent life and they rejected you would you help them? I certainly would have nothing to do with them. But he did give us a way out and that way means accepting him again. So yes the world will eventually destroy itself. That was already predicted. Read Revelations, you will see a lot of things predicted that are already beginning to happen. I know most of you will reject what I am saying just because people don't like to think that they are accountable for the things they do. Everyone wants to be their own god. But think about it a bit. I'm not saying to run to the nearest church and start confessing or anything like that, just sit down and really think about what you believe and the implications of it. And what happens if you are wrong. And what life and the world means if you are wrong. because if everyone is there own god and morals are just the result of random mutations (and how do they help individual survival anyways) then why should they hold? Why wouldn't everyone be entitled to survive by survival of the fittest, by killing, stealing and overall acting like animals? And what about thoughts if they are the product of random mutation do they really mean anything? How do you know you evolved right? You wouldn't even know if you know what right is. So just think about it for a little while.
bazranz
My wife was doing further research into her family history, and found someones tree who claimed ancestors right back to Adam and Eve, so if we are to believe his tree as factual Rolling Eyes then God must exist.
Bondings
Xipha, I always wondered how creationists explain the existence of stars millions of light years away. Because according to creationism, the universe is only 7000 years old, right?

Like the Triangulum Galaxy at 2,4 million light years distance and with a radious of 25000-30000 light years.
Jack_Hammer
Okay what about birth then, if you believe in religion (most religions anyway) you wouldn't believe in the way science says that we give birth, we duplicate in the woom, or in the way people evolve, Answer me this simple question,

If two black parents have a child what colour would it be?, black and why is that?, because of genes that show our history, that we have evolved (I'm not good at making a point so if anyone understands please feel free to jump in on my argument).
Xipha
Quote:
Xipha, I always wondered how creationists explain the existence of stars millions of light years away. Because according to creationism, the universe is only 7000 years old, right?

Like the Triangulum Galaxy at 2,4 million light years distance and with a radious of 25000-30000 light years.


Quote:
any scientific understanding of origins will always have opportunities for research—problems that need to be solved. We can never have complete knowledge and so there will always be things to learn.


Scientists don't know everything and never will. This includes creationist scientists. However there are possible theories. After all if you were God and you created the stars it would be pretty pointless unless people could see them. There are some theories such as light created in transit, and c-decay.

One possible theory that fits with the data and requires only one basic assumption (note that all theories contain assumptions that are not based on observed evidence, including the big bang, and evolution):

(sorry for the long quote)

Quote:
Nevertheless, the c-decay theory stimulated much thinking about the issues. Creationist physicist Dr Russell Humphreys says that he spent a year on and off trying to get the declining c theory to work, but without success. However, in the process, he was inspired to develop a new creationist cosmology which appears to solve the problem of the apparent conflict with the Bible’s clear, authoritative teaching of a recent creation.

This new cosmology is proposed as a creationist alternative to the big bang theory. It passed peer review, by qualifying reviewers, for the 1994 Pittsburgh International Conference on Creationism.2 Young-earth creationists have been cautious about the model,3 which is not surprising with such an apparently radical departure from orthodoxy, but Humphreys has addressed the problems raised.4 Believers in an old universe and the big bang have vigorously opposed the new cosmology and claim to have found flaws in it.5 However, Humphreys has been able to defend his model, as well as develop it further.6 The debate will no doubt continue.

This sort of development, in which one creationist theory, c-decay, is overtaken by another, is a healthy aspect of science. The basic biblical framework is non-negotiable, as opposed to the changing views and models of fallible people seeking to understand the data within that framework (evolutionists also often change their ideas on exactly how things have made themselves, but never whether they did).

A clue
Let us briefly give a hint as to how the new cosmology seems to solve the starlight problem before explaining some preliminary items in a little more detail. Consider that the time taken for something to travel a given distance is the distance divided by the speed it is traveling. That is:

Time = Distance / Speed
When this is applied to light from distant stars, the time calculates out to be millions of years. Some have sought to challenge the distances, but this is a very unlikely answer.7

Astronomers use many different methods to measure the distances, and no informed creationist astronomer would claim that any errors would be so vast that billions of light-years could be reduced to thousands, for example. There is good evidence that our own Milky Way galaxy is 100,000 light years across!

If the speed of light (c) has not changed, the only thing left untouched in the equation is time itself. In fact, Einstein’s relativity theories have been telling the world for decades that time is not a constant.

Two things are believed (with experimental support) to distort time in relativity theory—one is speed and the other is gravity. Einstein’s general theory of relativity, the best theory of gravity we have at present, indicates that gravity distorts time.

This effect has been measured experimentally, many times. Clocks at the top of tall buildings, where gravity is slightly less, run faster than those at the bottom, just as predicted by the equations of general relativity (GR).8

When the concentration of matter is very large or dense enough, the gravitational distortion can be so immense that even light cannot escape.9 The equations of GR show that at the invisible boundary surrounding such a concentration of matter (called the event horizon, the point at which light rays trying to escape the enormous pull of gravity bend back on themselves), time literally stands still.

Using different assumptions …
Dr Humphreys’ new creationist cosmology literally ‘falls out’ of the equations of GR, so long as one assumes that the universe has a boundary. In other words, that it has a center and an edge—that if you were to travel off into space, you would eventually come to a place beyond which there was no more matter. In this cosmology, the earth is near the center, as it appears to be as we look out into space.

This might sound like common sense, as indeed it is, but all modern secular (big bang) cosmologies deny this. That is, they make arbitrary assumption (without any scientific necessity) that the universe has no boundaries—no edge and no center. In this assumed universe, every galaxy would be surrounded by galaxies spread evenly in all directions (on a large enough scale), and so, therefore, all the net gravitational forces cancel out.

However, if the universe has boundaries, then there is a net gravitational effect toward the center. Clocks at the edge would be running at different rates to clocks on the earth. In other words, it is no longer enough to say God made the universe in six days. He certainly did, but six days by which clock? (If we say ‘God’s time’ we miss the point that He is outside of time, seeing the end from the beginning.)10

There appears to be observational evidence that the universe has expanded in the past, supported by the many phrases God uses in the Bible to tell us that at creation he ‘stretched out’11 (other verses say ‘spread out’) the heavens.

If the universe is not much bigger than we can observe, and if it was only 50 times smaller in the past than it is now, then scientific deduction based on GR means it has to have expanded out of a previous state in which it was surrounded by an event horizon (a condition known technically as a ‘white hole’—a black hole running in reverse, something permitted by the equations of GR).

As matter passed out of this event horizon, the horizon itself had to shrink—eventually to nothing. Therefore, at one point this earth (relative to a point far away from it) would have been virtually frozen. An observer on earth would not in any way ‘feel different.’ ‘Billions of years’ would be available (in the frame of reference within which it is traveling in deep space) for light to reach the earth, for stars to age, etc.—while less than one ordinary day is passing on earth. This massive gravitational time dilation would seem to be a scientific inevitability if a bounded universe expanded significantly.

In one sense, if observers on earth at that particular time could have looked out and ‘seen’ the speed with which light was moving toward them out in space, it would have appeared as if it were traveling many times faster than c. (Galaxies would also appear to be rotating faster.) However, if an observer in deep space was out there measuring the speed of light, to him it would still only be traveling at c.

There is more detail of this new cosmology, at layman’s level, in the book by Dr Humphreys, Starlight and Time, which also includes reprints of his technical papers showing the equations.12

It is fortunate that creationists did not invent such concepts such as gravitational time dilation, black and white holes, event horizons and so on, or we would likely be accused of manipulating the data to solve the problem. The interesting thing about this cosmology is that it is based upon mathematics and physics totally accepted by all cosmologists (general relativity), and it accepts (along with virtually all physicists) that there has been expansion in the past (though not from some imaginary tiny point). It requires no ‘massaging’—the results ‘fall out’ so long as one abandons the arbitrary starting point which the big bangers use (the unbounded cosmos idea, which could be called ‘what the experts don’t tell you about the “big bang”’).

Caution
While this is exciting news, all theories of fallible men, no matter how well they seem to fit the data, are subject to revision or abandonment in the light of future discoveries. What we can say is that at this point a plausible mechanism has been demonstrated, with considerable observational and theoretical support.


Ok about the birth thing. The child has the same attributes as a parent not because it evolved, but because those are the genes its parents passed on to it. This makes perfect sense with creation. In the bible it says that all living things shall reproduce after its own kind. And that is what we observe. If you believe in religion birth still makes perfect sense, growing in the womb also fits with creation. Two parents of the same ethnic origin having a child the same colour as they are shows that they are reproducing after their own kind according to the information that is already their, not genes changing. Now if two parents of African decent gave birth to a child with Caucasian, or Asian, or any other ethnicity that might be a different story. But as far as I know this has never happened without crossing ethnic bloodlines.
Bondings
Let's rephrase this theory:
-We receive light from stars of millions of light years away. So the universe should be at least serveral millions of years old.
-The bible states that the universe is only 7000-10000 years old. The bible is always right.
-So c must be getting lower.
-He took data from 1675-1960 and made a curve.
-Since 1960 more precise data was measured but 'unfortunately' the speed of light had just reached its minimal value.

Problem is, most things are connected with the speed of light, including energy and matter and thus also gravity and radioactivity. Changing the speed of light that much would have had huge impacts and are making the theory impossible.

By the way, even creationists don't support this theory anymore. Wink
Xipha
Quote:
-So c must be getting lower.


This theory does not say tht c is getting lower (that is the theory of c-decay which is not readily supported by creationists.) It says that because there is expansion Einstein's theory of relativaty applies. That is time is not fixed and is distorted by gravity. Not that c changes. That c would have to be observed relatively. Again this is just a theory, but there are several theories out there that offer a potential explanation. Just as the big bang is only a theory and only offers a potential explanation. When you invent a time machine to actually go observe the beginning let me know and the matter will be settled.

Also if you are so intent on using the problems of light travel to disprove creation you should read this article. http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v25/i4/lighttravel.asp

Also you imply that creationists are wrong to begin with the presupposition that the bible is correct. Evolutionists are equally biased in starting with the presupposition that the bible is not correct and there is no God. There is no proof of either of these assumptions. Evolutionists claim that there are no eyewitness accounts so there is no way of proving their assumptions, and they are made on blind faith. Creationists assume that the bible is the eyewitness account of the only one to witness creation; God himself. And that is where their faith lies. And the scientific data makes sense when viewed with these presuppositions, so there is no reason to believe tham wrong. Of course evolutionists also interperet the data in there own way based on their presuppositions, but who is to say which presuppositions are right? Afterall no human observed the beginning of time. I suggest reading the following article, and point out to me if you please what you see as flaws in the logic they have presented.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/re1/chapter1.asp
Reaper
Xipha if I did create a race of people and they didn't believe I existed I sure as hell wouldn't prove them right by not doing anything, I would make it quite clear that I existed either by helping them or slaughtering half of them and use my er.... divine powers to write I am your creator in the sky around the world or somthing like that.
Also if god as you say created us after his image then he must be a greedy self centered bastard who kills people for petty things, because as you said we were made in his image so this would include personality defects would it not?

I mean its evident enough that if god does exist that he has emotional problems if he got pissed off because one or two people decided to eat an apple when er god told them not to.
Bondings
Xipha wrote:
Also you imply that creationists are wrong to begin with the presupposition that the bible is correct. Evolutionists are equally biased in starting with the presupposition that the bible is not correct and there is no God. There is no proof of either of these assumptions. Evolutionists claim that there are no eyewitness accounts so there is no way of proving their assumptions, and they are made on blind faith.

Xipha, scientists don't start with a written text but with what they see and hear, with proofs and facts. They don't care wether there is a god or not. Most scientists aren't atheists. Even the pope is supporting the evolution and big bang theories.
Quote:
A number of Christian churches, the Roman Catholic Church in particular, have accepted the Big Bang as a possible description of the origin of the Universe, interpreting it to allow for a philosophical first cause. Pope Pius XII was an enthusiastic proponent of the Big Bang even before the theory was scientifically well established.

Even Charles Darwin wasn't an atheist:
Quote:
Charles Darwin came from a Nonconformist background. Though several members of his family were Freethinkers, openly lacking conventional religious beliefs, he did not initially doubt the literal truth of the Bible. He attended a Church of England school, then at Cambridge studied Anglican theology to become a clergyman and was fully convinced by William Paley's teleological argument that design in nature proved the existence of God. However, his beliefs began to shift during his time on board HMS Beagle. He questioned what he saw—wondering, for example, at beautiful deep-ocean creatures created where no one could see them, and shuddering at the sight of a wasp paralysing caterpillars as live food for its eggs; he saw the latter as contradicting Paley's vision of beneficent design. While on the Beagle Darwin was quite orthodox and would quote the Bible as an authority on morality, but had come to see the history in the Old Testament as being false and untrustworthy.

He did lose his faith in christianity:
Quote:
In later life, when asked about his religious views, he wrote that he had never been an Atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God, and that generally "an Agnostic would be the more correct description of my state of mind."

Quote:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v25/i4/lighttravel.asp

It doesn't state any explanation why we receive light which is obviously much older than 7000 years. (Our own galaxy is 100.000 light years in diameter.) It only states that the Big Bang theory has the same problem, while it is talking about CMB and I'm just talking about the light we receive/see.
Xipha
Quote:
Xipha if I did create a race of people and they didn't believe I existed I sure as hell wouldn't prove them right by not doing anything, I would make it quite clear that I existed either by helping them or slaughtering half of them and use my er.... divine powers to write I am your creator in the sky around the world or somthing like that.
Also if god as you say created us after his image then he must be a greedy self centered bastard who kills people for petty things, because as you said we were made in his image so this would include personality defects would it not?

I mean its evident enough that if god does exist that he has emotional problems if he got pissed off because one or two people decided to eat an apple when er god told them not to.


You forget that God also gave us free will. He wants us to make a choice, to accept or reject him out of free will, not out of fear. And what do you think the stars were meant to be if not a display of power meant to put awe in our hearts? God created us in his own image originally. You've probably heard the story of the Garden of Eden. Everything was perfect and good, until Adam and Eve turned their back on God and allowed Satan (the cause of greed, self centeredness, killing etc...) to have a hold on them. The point of the commanding them not to eat of the tree was not just to withold something from them, it was to give tham a choice to obey him or not. God wasnt mad because they ate an apple, it was because they did the one and only thing that he asked them not to do. And so that means that now every human has to make that choice for themselves to follow or not to follow God. The bad stuff in this world and the personality defects are not from God but rather from Satan who has a hold on this world because of the fall of man. God gave us a chance to be released fom that hold through Jesus.

Quote:
Xipha, scientists don't start with a written text but with what they see and hear, with proofs and facts. They don't care wether there is a god or not. Most scientists aren't atheists. Even the pope is supporting the evolution and big bang theories.


They do care whether there is a god or not. Did you read the last article that I posted? While most scientists may not start with a written text hey do start with a framework on which they interperet the facts. This framework contains all of their assumptions. Change even one of these assumptions and what appeared to be fact must be viewed in an entirely different way. All observations and facts must be interpereted on a framework. The difference between evolution and creation scientists is that creation scientists begin with a framework based on the bible, where as evolutionists begin with a framework based on their own assumptions that they have come up with. They have the same observations and data to work with they just interperet it differently. As for the pope and other religious leaders accepting evolution? They are compromisng their faith and the absolute authority of the bible. Afterall if they undermine the clear teachings of Genesis they may as well not follow the whole Bible. The creation/fall/flood/dispersion model clearly taught in the Bible that leads up to Jesus does not fit with evolution.

Quote:
It doesn't state any explanation why we receive light which is obviously much older than 7000 years. (Our own galaxy is 100.000 light years in diameter.) It only states that the Big Bang theory has the same problem, while it is talking about CMB and I'm just talking about the light we receive/see.


I have offered one possible theory that fits with accepted science today. There are other theories such as light created in transit. But like I have said it cannot ever be observed objectively so all that we will ever have is theories. Just as the big bang itself is only a theory. Yes creation theory has questions which we do not yet have the knowledge to answer. These questions are a healthy aspect of science, as they cause us to continue searching for answers which is the point of science. But the theories that you support have problems as well, as the article I mentioned above shows, so until you find definite, provable answers to all the problems with evolution and bing bang theories do not ask me to do the same for creation theories. There are plausible theories and until you invent that time machine that is all there will be on both sides of the debate.

Again I ask you to read this article and maybe it will help you understand the nature of this argument. You are free to point out any instances where you think their logic may be wrong. I particularily draw attention to some of the quotes by leading evolutionists, as well as the last section of the article as it addresses some of the points you have brought up.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/re1/chapter1.asp
Soulfire
I'm religious, and as such there is a God who created the world, a God who created Adam and Eve in his image, and thus we are all *very* distant relatives of Adam and Eve.

Science is even beginning to look toward religion for the unexplainable, and recent studies have indicated an afterlife, etc. It's all what you make of it I suppose.

To each his own, but I am Christian. Christ is the way.
Srs2388
The thing SoulFire, I do share the same eaxact beliefes as you do....
I'm glad to see some other people believe in God here Smile
wow, i really thought more people did believe in God though, in science at times I dont take notes, because some of the stuff is so stupid that they teach..... to me evolution just shoudn't be taught its not yet proven its a theary just what I think though =p dosn't really matter at school you still have to shut up and do the work..................yep
Bondings
Quote:
They are compromisng their faith and the absolute authority of the bible. Afterall if they undermine the clear teachings of Genesis they may as well not follow the whole Bible. The creation/fall/flood/dispersion model clearly taught in the Bible that leads up to Jesus does not fit with evolution.

So what you are actually saying is that nothing - absolutely nothing - may contradict a literal interpretation of the bible. If you don't believe that, you're not a christian?

Most Christians don't believe in a completely literal interpretation of the bible. The further you go from the new testament, the more the texts are further away from reality.

The story of Adam and Eve is just a very old story with a clear meaning: the start of humankind. Adam and Eve weren't humans yet and lived in innocence like the animals (the symbol of the paradise). They then were tempted by an apple (the symbol of the wisdom) and lost their innocence (removed from the paradise) and thus became humans. It's a story just like Jesus told them and you should get the meaning out of it instead of a literal interpretation like every word/sentence happened.

Quote:
Evolution is a deduction from this assumption, and it is essentially the idea that things made themselves. It includes these unproven ideas: nothing gave rise to something at an alleged ‘big bang,’ non-living matter gave rise to life, single-celled organisms gave rise to many-celled organisms, invertebrates gave rise to vertebrates, ape-like creatures gave rise to man, non-intelligent and amoral matter gave rise to intelligence and morality, man’s yearnings gave rise to religions, etc.

The problem is that that website uses arguments which aren't even valid.
Quote:
nothing gave rise to something at an alleged ‘big bang,’

No scientist claims that. They only claim that the universe started with the big bang. And of course if the universe didn't exist, there was nothing inside it. What caused the big bang is yet another theory.
Quote:
non-intelligent and amoral matter gave rise to intelligence and morality, man’s yearnings gave rise to religions, etc.

There are thousands if not millions of religions all over the world. They are all completely different, ranging from polytheism to monotheism. Yet, only one of them might be true. Isn't that a proof that man's yearnings gave rise to religions?

By the way, did you know that during the life of Jesus, there were hundreds of other people trying to make a new religion, just like Jesus did? His religion survived because it had the most loyal followers (because it was one of the best of the whole bunch I suppose).

Now a good question, if there is no evolution, how come that 2 people - Adam and Eve - evolved into all the current ethnicities? Doesn't this mean that we changed a lot according to where we live? And not just after one generation, but after hundreds of them.
benwhite
Quote:
You forget that God also gave us free will. He wants us to make a choice, to accept or reject him out of free will, not out of fear. And what do you think the stars were meant to be if not a display of power meant to put awe in our hearts?


While the god of the bible is merciful and unforgiving, he certainly did require people behave properly and have faith. Sodom and Gemorrah were destroyed because of sinful living. Jonah was forced to travel to Ninevah because the people were wicked and has lost faith. They regained their faith when Jonah told them of God's displeasure. This doesn't happen anymore.

Just because you can't see it doesn't mean it's true. Natural selection has been proved. Evolution is natural selection over the long term. It too has not been disproved. There is much evidence for, and some evidence against.

When I was in school, I was not "force-fed" evolution as fact. To the contrary, I was told is was a theory as was creationism. As it was a science class, we learned about the scientific basis for evolution and the studies around it. We were also told creationism so that we would not be one-sided. You can teach evolution. You can't 'learn' creationism the same way. That's a job for the chuch and the synagogue etc. Faith has no place in a secular education system. Creationism won't help you become a better biologist. Evolution does.

In college, this became less so. The biology teachers mocked creationism and taught strict evolution. That's their perogative. By the time a person is in their twenties, they should be able to stomach bias.
Crosis
perso, i have no religion... and i'm proud...
i think everybody is like sheep, and believe 'cause they think the world will be better... but all wars are for religion :K
(it's my opinion, and i respect your ^^)
Xipha
Quote:
So what you are actually saying is that nothing - absolutely nothing - may contradict a literal interpretation of the bible. If you don't believe that, you're not a christian?

Most Christians don't believe in a completely literal interpretation of the bible. The further you go from the new testament, the more the texts are further away from reality.

The story of Adam and Eve is just a very old story with a clear meaning: the start of humankind. Adam and Eve weren't humans yet and lived in innocence like the animals (the symbol of the paradise). They then were tempted by an apple (the symbol of the wisdom) and lost their innocence (removed from the paradise) and thus became humans. It's a story just like Jesus told them and you should get the meaning out of it instead of a literal interpretation like every word/sentence happened.


Usually when you are given witten instructions you interperet them literally unless there is some indication that they are meant to be interpreted otherwise. There is no such indication in the Bible. Jesus interpreted scripture literally. The Christian faith would not make sense based on a changing, vague scripture, as God is said in the Bible to be eternal and unchanging. You completely leave out death from your symbolic story. It was because this original sin brought death into the world that Jesus was required to come and save us from death. If there was no such actual literal sin that brought death then there would be no actual literal reason for Jesus to come and die for those sins. The Bible must be taken as a whole or not at all. Yes there are Christians who do not believe in literal interpretation and they are misguided, or are not really willing to accept the Bible.

Quote:
The problem is that that website uses arguments which aren't even valid.
Quote:
nothing gave rise to something at an alleged ‘big bang,’

No scientist claims that. They only claim that the universe started with the big bang. And of course if the universe didn't exist, there was nothing inside it. What caused the big bang is yet another theory.
Quote:
non-intelligent and amoral matter gave rise to intelligence and morality, man’s yearnings gave rise to religions, etc.

There are thousands if not millions of religions all over the world. They are all completely different, ranging from polytheism to monotheism. Yet, only one of them might be true. Isn't that a proof that man's yearnings gave rise to religions?

By the way, did you know that during the life of Jesus, there were hundreds of other people trying to make a new religion, just like Jesus did? His religion survived because it had the most loyal followers (because it was one of the best of the whole bunch I suppose).

Now a good question, if there is no evolution, how come that 2 people - Adam and Eve - evolved into all the current ethnicities? Doesn't this mean that we changed a lot according to where we live? And not just after one generation, but after hundreds of them.


Ok, so there might be theories out there but eventually when you get down to it something did have to come from nothing. I've heard all sorts of crazy theories about multiverses, and gravitaional singularities, but the bottom line is there was nothing then there was something. So the essential theory is that nothing gave rise to something.

The fact that there are many religions out there does not prove evolution, only that man has yearnings and they must be fulfilled in some way. And if I may ask why would these yearnings have evolved in the first place? Do they give some sort of survival advantage? Evolution is based on naturalism which doesn't leave room for spiritual or supernatural things. So if nature is all there is why do humans yearn for something more?

And Jesus didn't make Christianity, it has roots much deeper than that. Jesus was the fulfillment of the old testament prophecies dating back to Genesis, (Gen. 3:15) Isaiah, and others.

And as for your question as to how two people could give rise to all of todays ethnicities fits very well with the creation/fall/flood/dispersion model. You see When God created everything in 6 days he put in place all the information needed to survive in a changing world, especially one that was not perfect. So it makes sense that the first two people would contain a lot more genetic information than is seen presently. So when populations dispersed after babel traits that were desirable for that environment were passed on and the genes for undesirable traits were wiped out because they were not passed on. So eventually through reshuffling and loss of available information there eventually came to be genes that contained all of the information for a specific ethnic group.

Quote:
While the god of the bible is merciful and unforgiving, he certainly did require people behave properly and have faith. Sodom and Gemorrah were destroyed because of sinful living. Jonah was forced to travel to Ninevah because the people were wicked and has lost faith. They regained their faith when Jonah told them of God's displeasure. This doesn't happen anymore.

Just because you can't see it doesn't mean it's true. Natural selection has been proved. Evolution is natural selection over the long term. It too has not been disproved. There is much evidence for, and some evidence against.

When I was in school, I was not "force-fed" evolution as fact. To the contrary, I was told is was a theory as was creationism. As it was a science class, we learned about the scientific basis for evolution and the studies around it. We were also told creationism so that we would not be one-sided. You can teach evolution. You can't 'learn' creationism the same way. That's a job for the chuch and the synagogue etc. Faith has no place in a secular education system. Creationism won't help you become a better biologist. Evolution does.

In college, this became less so. The biology teachers mocked creationism and taught strict evolution. That's their perogative. By the time a person is in their twenties, they should be able to stomach bias.


Natural selection does exist and is actually an important part of the creation model as it would be required to repopulate a changed world after a global flood. However natural selection is not evolution despite what many science textbooks try to pass off. Natural selection involves the loss and shuffling of existing information. (see http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/re1/chapter2.asp) if you want to know the difference between natural selection and evolution. There is absolutely no proof, only speculation of the information adding changes that are required for evolution. There is only interpretations to support evolution, and the same evidence interpereted on a framework that supports evolution can also be interpreted on a framework that supports creation. So it is not true that there is "much evidence for and some against".

As for being force-fed evolution, some schools are worse for it than others. But in many high school science textbooks they reference outdated (Darwin's finches), disproven (archeopteryx), abandoned (whale, horse evolution) or even fradulent (embryology, pilt-down man, archeorapror) cases as "proof" of evolution, when really they should be teaching the problems along with the theory, as this would be truly scientific and cause further research. For a specific example would encourage you to read this. http://www.answersingenesis.org/news/lerner_resp.asp . As for creation not helping biology but evolution helping it that is purely false. You must know the difference between operational and origins science. Operational science is repeatedly observable, and is the kind of science that put man on the moon, cures diseases, etc... Origins science speculates where we came from and is not testable, but comes from speculations and abstractions. For instance you could say, it is observable ion the present that coded information always comes from an intelligent source so it is reasonable to assume that in the past it was this way also. This is the nature of origins science. Is it really necessary to believe in evolution to understand how cells, mitochondria, nerves, biological systems etc... work? In fact many of the founders of biology and other sciences were creationists:

Quote:
Physics: Newton, Faraday, Maxwell, Kelvin
Chemistry: Boyle, Dalton, Ramsay
Biology: Ray, Linnaeus, Mendel, Pasteur, Virchow, Agassiz
Geology: Steno, Woodward, Brewster, Buckland, Cuvier
Astronomy: Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, Herschel, Maunder
Mathematics: Pascal, Leibnitz



As well as many living scientists (including biologists who are creationists) http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/default.asp

As for creation not being real science deserving of a place in education: Science was founded on creationist ideas: That is there is an ordered God who created the universe and so logically the universe has order we can observe. If there was no God would you really expect to find order resulting from random accidents and chance?

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/re2/chapter1.asp

Here is a really good question. How do evolutionists justify putting there faith in chance given the astronomical odds agaist it?

Quote:
The argument from probability that life could not form by natural processes but must have been created is sometimes acknowledged by evolutionists as a strong argument.1 The probability of the chance formation of a hypothetical functional ‘simple’ cell, given all the ingredients, is acknowledged2 to be worse than 1 in 10^57800. This is a chance of 1 in a number with 57,800 zeros. It would take 11 full pages of magazine type to print this number. To try to put this in perspective, there are about 10^80 (a number with 80 zeros) electrons in the universe. Even if every electron in our universe were another universe the same size as ours that would ‘only’ amount to 10^160 electrons.


http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i2/chance.asp[/quote]
Anttu^^
i dont belive in anything, religions are just belives just stories that some humans has created a long time ago, i have no idea why, maybe some were just stories and became belives and writers were only insane, and everybody must know that the human brain is filled fith bugs that make us see lots of wierd stuff so dont always belive in anything, and if you belive to much in something then the belive will in the end eat your brain up and you will only do as you belive say, me my self was from the beginning a Christian but now i know that belives are just belives and that there are nothing like gods and those stuff, but i realy my self wish that there would be a god in this world because it is just too boring living without one :\

well hope you guys can read and understand anything that i have writen,
(i was in a hurry Razz)

and yeah every one has the right to be hwo they want so i dont care if you belive in something or dont Smile
Painshock
im an agnostic, but im an atheist on paper. i dont believe in anything i dont see for myself. i dont believe in God because i cant believe in something that ive only heard from stories ppl have told and read from a book about this person who is almighty. if i would believe in God and in Jesus, i might as well believe in the clown from Stephen King's IT, theyre both written, thereby fictive characters. id like to meet the person who can prove me God really does exist.
benwhite
Textbooks mention outdated models because the models are part scientific history. Chemistry textbooks also teach of outdated chemistry models and equations so students can see how the field changes.

This is about science and RELIGION. I imagine there are plenty of Jews who would disagree with the notion that Christianity was foreordained in the bible. Given the big three religions, and everyone thinking theyre correct, that already gives rise to very big questions about who is right. If everyone is right, then the Bible cannot be taken literally. The issue of creationism stems from the old testament, the bible of the Jews and has little to do with Jesus. You believing in the word of Christ doesn't make his interpretation of an older book right or wrong when compared to people who belive in Islam or Judaism. Calling people who believe in the Bible as allegory misguided is misguided in and of itself. Who are you to say what makes that correct?

Evolution is natural selection over the long term. That is what it is. An amalgamation of infentisimal changes that bring positive effects that create long term change in an organism population. Period. Whether by random mutation or by changing habitat, this is how evolution occurs. Saying it magically different in every doesn't make it true. Natural selection is the micro to evolution's macro scale.
dzo
Crosis wrote:
perso, i have no religion... and i'm proud...


You do have a religon. You believe in something, that is a religon.

Personally I believe its impossible to know the truth and people should keep an open mind and just be good to eachother. I am against organised religons that "group" people and tell them what to do. And thats my religon.

I think Jesus was also thinking along those lines Smile
Soulfire
Painshock wrote:
im an agnostic, but im an atheist on paper. i dont believe in anything i dont see for myself. i dont believe in God because i cant believe in something that ive only heard from stories ppl have told and read from a book about this person who is almighty. if i would believe in God and in Jesus, i might as well believe in the clown from Stephen King's IT, theyre both written, thereby fictive characters. id like to meet the person who can prove me God really does exist.


That's the trick, the test, the trial. Believing without seeing, God wants you to trust him, he shouldn't have to do it himself. He wants you to follow him by choice, not force.

Anyways, evolution does happen, but as for the theory of evolution - bull, all of it. Why aren't there still half monkey, half humans running around? Did we all evolve at the exact same time, exact same pattern, and became a different species at the same time? It doesn't make sense in my opinion, and that's just my opinion, don't look too much into it.
Bondings
Soulfire wrote:
Anyways, evolution does happen, but as for the theory of evolution - bull, all of it. Why aren't there still half monkey, half humans running around? Did we all evolve at the exact same time, exact same pattern, and became a different species at the same time? It doesn't make sense in my opinion, and that's just my opinion, don't look too much into it.

Evolution is permanent and not a one-time event. You aren't able to see big chances on one generation. Sure one person/animal may change, but the species won't change in one generation. And in 100 generations you can have up to 2^100 ancestors. So as long as the whole group has contact with each other, they will stay the same species.

If they are seperated from other groups they will most likely evolve differently from those groups. Like kangaroos in Australia or all the differnces between the Eurasian species and American species.
Xipha
Quote:
Textbooks mention outdated models because the models are part scientific history. Chemistry textbooks also teach of outdated chemistry models and equations so students can see how the field changes.

This is about science and RELIGION. I imagine there are plenty of Jews who would disagree with the notion that Christianity was foreordained in the bible. Given the big three religions, and everyone thinking theyre correct, that already gives rise to very big questions about who is right. If everyone is right, then the Bible cannot be taken literally. The issue of creationism stems from the old testament, the bible of the Jews and has little to do with Jesus. You believing in the word of Christ doesn't make his interpretation of an older book right or wrong when compared to people who belive in Islam or Judaism. Calling people who believe in the Bible as allegory misguided is misguided in and of itself. Who are you to say what makes that correct?

Evolution is natural selection over the long term. That is what it is. An amalgamation of infentisimal changes that bring positive effects that create long term change in an organism population. Period. Whether by random mutation or by changing habitat, this is how evolution occurs. Saying it magically different in every doesn't make it true. Natural selection is the micro to evolution's macro scale.


I was not talking about textbooks mentioning them, I was speaking of textbooks that teach using these materials without bothering to mention that they are discredited.

If you were given an instruction manual telling you how to put together a bike would you say "oh thats not literally what it means, If I attach the sprockets to the handlebars it will work because thats what I believe it means". In the same way the Bible was intended to be God's instructions on how to live our life. Afterall if God gave us instructions that could be interpereted any way that you wanted, noone would ever know what he was really trying to say. Therefore if you believe that the Bible is the Word of God, it must be taken literally. Just because some people presume to know the mind of God and translate it any which way does not mean that they are correct. The nature of truth us that here can be only one truth. Judaism relies on the old testament, and even Islam to some degree agrees with the old testament. In the old testament it teaches clearly that as payment for sin, both the original sin and individual sin, blood payment was required. Jesus was sent to be the perfect payment, the only one that could permanently save people from their sins. His coming fulfilled all the old testament prophecies and made further blood atonement uneccesary. Judaism has chosen to reject Jesus and still waits for their Messiah. All that withstanding, the nature of the Bible as an instruction book requires literal interpretation. It is meant to give the truth, not to create confusion as to what the truth really is. Unfortunately humans who do not want to accept their ultimate accountability have distorted it making it what they want to believe, and hence following a GOd of their own design.

As to your bit about evolution being natural selection over the long term, you are using equivocation. No creationist would deny that change happens over time, in fact this is an important part of their own theory. Even natural selection and genetic drift causing new species to emerge fits with creation. What does not fit is the information adding changes which would be required to go from ameoba to man. There has never been observed such a change. Natural selection does occur noone is arguing that it doesn't. However there is only speculation that it is a mechanism for evolution along with random mutations. After all if evolution happened it should still be happeneing so there should be many observable cases of a change that actually adds information that did not exist previously. Sofar all observed mutations have either reshuffled, lost, or damaged already existing information... and further very few of these mutations are even beneficial. Chance outdoing intelligence, even given the billions of years that evolutionists claim is preposterous. (refer to article in my last post)
benwhite
Of course far back changes have been observed. Using molecular biology, we can see how mitochondria become incorporated into bateria that gave rise to animals or the chloroplasts in the algae plasmid. Tools like DNA analysis show us the relationships that stretch back to the time when we are unable to directly see. Those building blocks are visible. If Dinosaurs could evolve into birds in only millions of years, why not a more drastic change over 6 billion?

If schools are unable to use up-to-date textbooks because of funding or other issues, that isn't at fault with the theory. That's a side issue.

God's instructions for how to live life that give us our morals are not discredited by allegorical interpretation. If God says, thou shalt not kill--that decree is still just as valid whether or not the world was created in a week. The background, the context of the laws is not as important as the laws themselves. It is easily possible to accept the teachings of the Bible without believing every word of the Gospel--to say you must believe in creationism to live a moral and acceptable life is silly.

Once again, I'd point out that people of other faiths would wholeheartedly disagree with your view of the old testament. Jews don't believe in Jesus as the messiah not out of ignorance, but out of their own interpretation of the Torah, which they had been studying for centuries. In the Tanach, the messiah is said to be the end of suffering, the dead rise from graves over Jerusalem, heaven on earth, etc etc etc. With that written in the bible, why would it be wrong for Jews to believe the messiah has not come. The messiah in Judaism is a man, a pure souled man, signaled by the prophet of Elijah. These qualification were unfufilled---given this, and there is no way to refute these statements, they're in there---there is a discrepancy in the literal interpretation unless one group is correct over others. Allegory is perfectly capable of teaching morality.
Preacher
Quote:
Of course far back changes have been observed. Using molecular biology, we can see how mitochondria become incorporated into bateria that gave rise to animals or the chloroplasts in the algae plasmid. Tools like DNA analysis show us the relationships that stretch back to the time when we are unable to directly see. Those building blocks are visible. If Dinosaurs could evolve into birds in only millions of years, why not a more drastic change over 6 billion?

If schools are unable to use up-to-date textbooks because of funding or other issues, that isn't at fault with the theory. That's a side issue.

God's instructions for how to live life that give us our morals are not discredited by allegorical interpretation. If God says, thou shalt not kill--that decree is still just as valid whether or not the world was created in a week. The background, the context of the laws is not as important as the laws themselves. It is easily possible to accept the teachings of the Bible without believing every word of the Gospel--to say you must believe in creationism to live a moral and acceptable life is silly.

Once again, I'd point out that people of other faiths would wholeheartedly disagree with your view of the old testament. Jews don't believe in Jesus as the messiah not out of ignorance, but out of their own interpretation of the Torah, which they had been studying for centuries. In the Tanach, the messiah is said to be the end of suffering, the dead rise from graves over Jerusalem, heaven on earth, etc etc etc. With that written in the bible, why would it be wrong for Jews to believe the messiah has not come. The messiah in Judaism is a man, a pure souled man, signaled by the prophet of Elijah. These qualification were unfufilled---given this, and there is no way to refute these statements, they're in there---there is a discrepancy in the literal interpretation unless one group is correct over others. Allegory is perfectly capable of teaching morality.


Hold it, hold it, hold it! First of all, the Torah (If that's what you meant) says nothing about Elijah or anythin about the messiah for that matter! The Torah contains the first five books of the Bible (The Laws of how we should live). So you have been misinformed in that regaurd. The end of suffering which you refer to is the second coming of Jesus Christ. This is when Christ returns to earth to bring his followers with him to heaven, NOT his first coming to earth. The end of suffering is eluded to in the book of revelation (it is not directly referred to because most of the book is dedicated to the lead-up, the antichrist and Judgement of mankind) Anyways, back on the topic of the Savior. The qualifications of the messiah WERE met by Christ in that he was born sinless. This was possible because there was no man involved in his conception (Sin is passed on to children throught the man). Therefore, when took our sin onto himself he was perfect. Simmilar to the old testament sacrifice of a perfect lamb. One without spots or imperfections. Christ, in his perfect state, took the sin of mankind upon himself and died on the cross to pay for those sins.

Now, on to the topic of your textbooks. I would like to point out the fact that regaurdless of countless translations, and the efforts of many corrupt men, the Bible and the message it carries has remained constant. I have heard of many translations of the Bible, in many different languages...But I have never heard of a revised version that includes something that we've been missing all along. If you want to bring in the "Lost in translation" argument, I would also like to point out the fact that English speaking people are not the only researchers on the planet. If you are of the opinion that the Bible could not still be accurate after so many translations, you must also be of the opinion that any document (Say, for instance, a record of research) Which was not written in the first language of the reader must be untrustworthy. Impossible you say? Modern translators know what they're doing, right? Well in that case...I guess our modern translations (of the Bible) of the original manuscripts must be pretty accurate to the original article. If authenticity is your main opposition, I must point out the extensive research which has been done in accordance with the reliability of the new testement. I would also like to point out the fact that virtually all theorums relating to subjects such as Mathmatics, Biology, Physics and Calculus, were recorded by men and women who are long since dead. Everything we know about history was given to us by documentation provided by intelligent people who had the sense to write down what they saw. The Bible was written by such men and women as these. If you doubt it's authenticity because of its age, then you must doubt the authenticity of every document that has passed through your hands which was not written by you, or someone you have met and researched alongside.

-TSD

God Bless and Keep you all.
benwhite
I wasn't arguing about the quality of bible translation whatsoever. When did I make a Lost in Translation arguement? I said that using old books to teach evolution theories is a problem with the school system and not with the science behind it.

I said TANACH. I meant Tanach. Try looking it up before saying I'm mistaken. The Tanach is a hebrew acronym for Torah, Nevi'im and Ketuvim. In English, the Bible, the Prophets, and the Scrolls. The collection of holy writings from ancient times. Things like Elijah are extremely well known--I advise not talking about what Judaism says from what you learned in Church. It's well documented, even in...

wikipedia: Elijah wrote:
It is believed that the prophet Elijah shall return at the end of time to foretell the coming of the Jewish Messiah.


Boom. If you read a serious hebrew scholar, like, say Maimonides from 1000 years ago for example--you would see the places where he cites these qualifications in the Tanach. Judaism is not willfully ignorant. That's a silly assertion to make. In Jewish law, Jesus did not fill the messiah. Christianity interprets things differently and that's fine. But do you really think people would give up the messiah on a hunch? The Jews of old knew what they were looking for and made their decision based on the Torah and what they felt must happen. Whether they're wrong or not isn't the point, but the point IS that within their framework they were right.

The same way Christians believe that Jesus is foreshadowed the Jews think it's balogna. In Judaism, there is no second coming. God can have no trinity. There is no antichrist. Judaism also believes that sex to produce children is not only unsinful, but is a mitvah (obligation). The notion of original sin being passed down by SEX (as the naughty act) came with Christianity. Jews had 613 commandments before the destruction of the second temple--you think they didn't know what they thought they knew? Please. The same thing with people mocking evolution theories as silly (half-man half monkey allusion) because they don't understand it. It's important to know what you argue against. Ignorance gets you no where.
Arnie
I don't think they meant the act of sex as being what passes on the sinful nature, but rather the "it's in the blood" idea. As you can see way back in this topic I'm not taking any sides, but how about you guys stop personally attacking eachother with "you're ignorant" and "do your homework better". I know you have a craving to do that with whoever disagrees with your most noble opinion, but it's not very civilised.

Footnote, I don't think this problem can be solved by discussion. It's a matter of personal conviction that can only change through events in personal lives.
benwhite
You're absolutely right. I'm guilty of some underhanded remarks as well. While the ignorance (and 'do your homework') applies, it won't change. And saying so doesn't make you right. And it can't be decided, it is a matter of conviction--debate really doesn't go anywhere when belief or faith is the topic. It really is like yelling in a soundproof room. I will say this: It is not in this board's best interest for people to say things without first double-checking their content. People who use opinions as facts run into the danger that we see in a lot of the Islam threads--ignorant malevolence. I hate to see that.

As for the in the 'in the blood' part vs. sex itself. They both apply. A child is not born into sin in Judaism nor is sex an act of sin. Both are sinful in Christianity. It is just one of those differences between the two.
Xipha
Quote:
A child is not born into sin in Judaism nor is sex an act of sin. Both are sinful in Christianity. It is just one of those differences between the two.


Sex is not a sin in Christianity. (If you've ever read Song of Solomon, this whole book of the bible is about sex). Sex was made to be good, as well as reproduce children. What is a sin is sex outside of marriage, as it is meant to be the ultimate joining between two people, which is only supposed to occur during marriage.

While it is true that whether you believe in God or not is only a matter of personal conviction, I believe this debate was important because of many people's blind acceptance of one side or the other. It is important to realize that there are no such things as solid facts, only interpretations based on a framework of assumptions which are untestable. many people believe that all the evidence points towards evolution and very little points towards creation. However once you understand the way origins science works it is clear that no one theory can be proven to be true as one must question the basic assumptions that were made to arrive at this conclusion. The same evidence that supports evolution when looked at using one set of base assumptions supports creation as well when looked at using different base assumptions. These base assumptions are mutually exclusive but one cannot prove the other wrong because they are only assumptions with no observations supporting them. So either God exists and created everything or he did not and we are just the product of random mutations.

A thought on the implications of being the products of accidents:

Quote:
C.S. Lewis also pointed out that even our ability to reason would be called into question if atheistic evolution were true:

If the solar system was brought about by an accidental collision, then the appearance of organic life on this planet was also an accident, and the whole evolution of Man was an accident too. If so, then all our thought processes are mere accidents, the accidental by-product of the movement of atoms. And this holds for the materialists’ and astronomers’ as well as for anyone else’s. But if their thoughts, i.e., of Materialism and Astronomy are merely accidental by-products, why should we believe them to be true? I see no reason for believing that one accident should be able to give a correct account of all the other accidents.24

Rachael
i dont know which to believe because i believe in god and adam and eve but i also think that we mightve come from apes. so its really confusing.
anyways....
Vrythramax
I was born and raised an Irish Catholic boy, and for the longest time I belived in the Church and God. But there are so many differing opinions I don't know what to belive anymore.

Example: If man was created in God's image, then why are there so many races, creeds, and nationalities in the world? By defination to be created in ones own image....shouldn't we all look alike?

What about the Dinosuars?
benwhite
Xipha wrote:
Quote:
A child is not born into sin in Judaism nor is sex an act of sin. Both are sinful in Christianity. It is just one of those differences between the two.


Sex is not a sin in Christianity. (If you've ever read Song of Solomon, this whole book of the bible is about sex). Sex was made to be good, as well as reproduce children. What is a sin is sex outside of marriage, as it is meant to be the ultimate joining between two people, which is only supposed to occur during marriage.


You're right. I shouldn't have said Christianity as a whole. There are branches that do and did believe the above to be true. Catholicism places merit in chastity in Priests and Nuns, which would not be the case in Judaism. The Song of Solomon is old testament and thus not exclusively Christian, though it is the source of many weddding vows, quotes, and jewelry. I was given a ring that has a line from the Song of Solomon on it. And as would be expected, sex out of wedlock is indeed a sin.

The dicussion may be important, but here's the thing. Almost no one has pretended to call thier beliefs absolute fact. We've all been working within our own frameworks though. Discounting the opposite framework out of hand, which we've all done, means that the dicussion is less of a discussion. Each point made is reversed, and the end result is that Creationists believe evolutionists are missing the most important point and Evolutionists think Creationists have no idea what the scientific process really entails.

As to the God's image: God has no body, no form. In fact, in Islam and Judaism, it is forbidden to speak of God's form. To refer to God anthropoprmorphically is false. His image means we have cognition, free will, etc--not his physical image, for he has none. When the Bible speaks of God's hands, for example, ancient scholars though of this as a simplification to make God easier to understand for weaker minds. I mean that seriously. Old Talmudic convention states that this is metaphor.

The two theories are only mutually exclusive if the Bible is taken literally. There is a large group of people who stand in the middle. One example is the 'clockmaker' hypothesis. Another is simply that God evolution is a tool of a higher power, seemingly random or not. Many many many people believe in God and/or organized religion but do not take the Bible literally. This is the framework in which compromise is made.
DizzyThermal
S3nd K3ys wrote:
Raijenki wrote:
I don't believe in God, and i don't believe in science.
:




Milk just came thru my nose. (I'm glad I wasn't eating a cookie or something!) Very Happy

Whether you believe in science or not, it DOES exist.

"i don't believe in science." LMAO!

Quote:
sci·ence
n.

1.
1. The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
2. Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena.
3. Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.
2. Methodological activity, discipline, or study: I've got packing a suitcase down to a science.
3. An activity that appears to require study and method: the science of purchasing.
4. Knowledge, especially that gained through experience.


Rofl, Science is Science... Your science, your computer is Science...

Think about it...

Physics
Biology
Chemistry

How can you not believe in science...

It's impossible :-\
Dragon_fang
i understand that everone has opinions and thats cool...but heres mine.

i personaly dont believe in any religion and i HATE all religions. im "supposed" to be catholic but i dont go to church and i dont believe 1 word out of the bible. its a book written 2000 years ago that we have NO proof of who actually wrote it (i think it was just a very very old novel that somebody wrote...a very boring novel) most of the things i was tought throughout catholic elementary school aren't even written in the bible and most of the time when i asked the teacher/priest to actually find where it says that...they responded with "its just the catholic belief" (in other words totally made up) like for example jesus said many times that he actually wasn't gods son... and yes he called him father but so do we...and we also call priests father (or maybe jesus was just crazy)

i know there are other religions out there but i dont know about them nor do i want to. i am a firm believer in science!!! oh and btw dont thank god for all the things u have ...who do u think designed/made them - scientists.
lolz
Religion are for people who has spiritual needs strong willed people do not need religion but without religion one can slip away from the "right" path easily.

Human tend to use science to explain everything and slowly the myths that people tell are slowly being explain by science, GOD do not just stop and think "Hey, why don't I create a planet and see how humans will live their lives"
Xipha
I think most people misunderstand the nature of both science and religion. I think a lot of people mistake origins science as operational science, but they are two completly different things. What they don't teach you in school is that all science is based on interpretations of observations. This even includes operational science, but it is possible to directly observe physics, chemistry, biology and other aspects of these sciences, so it is possible to come up with theories directly from these observations. However, even these theories are based on assumptions. For example I just finished reading a new publication that has a completely different theory of gravity, based outside of the assumptions of modern science. This person states that today's theory of gravity actually contradicts the laws of physics. For example there is seemingly endless energy that holds objects to the earth and in orbit seemingly without diminishing any power source, without even the existence of a power source. Scientists make this contradiction dissapear by improper application of the work-energy equation. Where the model may work mathematically it is simply an extrapolation of earlier geometric equations that function equally well for the same purpose. I will have to try and find the book to see if they actually have anything valid to add to science, but the point is even operational science shifts if you change your basic assumptions (In the gravity case this is that the orbits of planets has the same equation as a rock swung on a string, which is a completely arbitrary assumption based on geometric appearance. The author of the article points out that a more reasonable assumption would be a rock swung on the end of a spring, which would result in a different theory of gravity. That is if these assumptions have anything at all to do with the physical nature and reasons behind gravity at all. The author claims to have found an alternate atomic principle that underlies the theory of everything, and would mean that gravity is purely an invented force, and that this principle is not just a mathematical and imperfect model of the observations that have been made but a physical explanation.). Origins science is even more based on assumptions and we do not even have a way of validating these assumptions because there is no way to make an observation. So people have come up with basic frameworks to assume our beginnings: the two basic ones are special creation vs. random chance. Both are valid under the guidelines of origins science. Personally I find it pointless to base your faith on nuturalist origins science as it is ever changing in its framework and has no real solid foundation. Operational science is the science that gets things done (like putting man on the moon, and curing diseases) and it is not affected by religion or faith in any way because it is based soley on the observed laws of the universe without giving consideration as to why there is order and laws in the universe in the first place (that is the domain, and really the whole point of origins science). So it is perfectly reasonable to believe in and use operational science, and at the same time have faith that it was God that set the universe and the laws that govern it in motion (which would be my stand in origins science). Those two statements go together with perfect harmony. And people can believe in and use operational science without being hindered by the fact that they believe that chance and accidents gave rise to the universe and all the order and laws within it. Personally i think this is absurd, especially when I look into the logic behind reason itself and human conciousness and what the implications of them arising by chance would be, but to each his own. It takes faith to believe in either God or chance as the cause for everything.

What I would like to see changed is people's mistaken belief that because the majority of people believe something it must be correct, the stereotypes that because people believe in creation they cannot be "real scientists" and must be deluded, and for people to start thinking for themselves and asking questions instead of blindly accepting what they are told without understanding what it is they are being told and on what assumptions this information was based. I think this would lead to more educated people who are willing to think, and would make the science industry healthier, because asking questions is the first step to getting answers.

(Gravity theory reference came from the first chapter of the book "The Final Theory"... which I must get and read to see if they have anything really valuable to say or if they just made more arbitrary assumptions lol!)
Preacher
Quote:
You're absolutely right. I'm guilty of some underhanded remarks as well. While the ignorance (and 'do your homework') applies, it won't change. And saying so doesn't make you right. And it can't be decided, it is a matter of conviction--debate really doesn't go anywhere when belief or faith is the topic. It really is like yelling in a soundproof room. I will say this: It is not in this board's best interest for people to say things without first double-checking their content. People who use opinions as facts run into the danger that we see in a lot of the Islam threads--ignorant malevolence. I hate to see that.

As for the in the 'in the blood' part vs. sex itself. They both apply. A child is not born into sin in Judaism nor is sex an act of sin. Both are sinful in Christianity. It is just one of those differences between the two.



I am guilty in this area as well. I appologize if my previous posts appeared to take shots at the reciever's education/information.
Bondings
Xipha wrote:
For example I just finished reading a new publication that has a completely different theory of gravity, based outside of the assumptions of modern science. This person states that today's theory of gravity actually contradicts the laws of physics. For example there is seemingly endless energy that holds objects to the earth and in orbit seemingly without diminishing any power source, without even the existence of a power source. Scientists make this contradiction dissapear by improper application of the work-energy equation. Where the model may work mathematically it is simply an extrapolation of earlier geometric equations that function equally well for the same purpose. I will have to try and find the book to see if they actually have anything valid to add to science, but the point is even operational science shifts if you change your basic assumptions (In the gravity case this is that the orbits of planets has the same equation as a rock swung on a string, which is a completely arbitrary assumption).

Challenging one of the most stable and proven theories in the history of science in a simple publication with most likely not even a scientific explanation, let alone a proof. Rolling Eyes

Let me explain you a few principles:
-Everything is based on simplifications of theories.
-Planets, rocks, balls are all considered to be point masses as a simplification in most easy calculations.
-The orbits of objects like satellites are completely explained by those theories and very easy to understand. Satellites are launched with a starting speed. They also have an accelleration towards the earth due to gravity. That accelleration is perpendicular to the speed. This results in a circular movement. If you increase the speed, the orbit will have a bigger radius. If you decrease it, it will fall down to earth. There is no friction with air in space, making the speed stay constant.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity

Anyway, I'm gone from this discussion if you are seriously starting to question gravity in a scientific context. Just warn me if that person ever builds an aircraft.
Xipha
Bondings wrote:
Xipha wrote:
For example I just finished reading a new publication that has a completely different theory of gravity, based outside of the assumptions of modern science. This person states that today's theory of gravity actually contradicts the laws of physics. For example there is seemingly endless energy that holds objects to the earth and in orbit seemingly without diminishing any power source, without even the existence of a power source. Scientists make this contradiction dissapear by improper application of the work-energy equation. Where the model may work mathematically it is simply an extrapolation of earlier geometric equations that function equally well for the same purpose. I will have to try and find the book to see if they actually have anything valid to add to science, but the point is even operational science shifts if you change your basic assumptions (In the gravity case this is that the orbits of planets has the same equation as a rock swung on a string, which is a completely arbitrary assumption).

Challenging one of the most stable and proven theories in the history of science in a simple publication with most likely not even a scientific explanation, let alone a proof. Rolling Eyes

Let me explain you a few principles:
-Everything is based on simplifications of theories.
-Planets, rocks, balls are all considered to be point masses as a simplification in most easy calculations.
-The orbits of objects like satellites are completely explained by those theories and very easy to understand. Satellites are launched with a starting speed. They also have an accelleration towards the earth due to gravity. That accelleration is perpendicular to the speed. This results in a circular movement. If you increase the speed, the orbit will have a bigger radius. If you decrease it, it will fall down to earth. There is no friction with air in space, making the speed stay constant.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity

Anyway, I'm gone from this discussion if you are seriously starting to question gravity in a scientific context. Just warn me if that person ever builds an aircraft.


I was not saying that this theory was fact. i am just saying that it demonstrates that changing even simple starting assumptions can radically alter your understanding of how things work. That was all. I was by no means implying that gravity does not exist. The observations are readily available. I was saying that this person believes that they may have found an alternate, more deep understanding of the way (and why) gravity works. That is the way science progresses. People propose new theories that explain the order that we observe. And it is just that. A theory. Not prove, not even definately valid, as i have said I plan to read the rest of their theory, ask questions of the assumptions on which it is based, and then decide whether it is viable or not. The fact is gravity is not proven and there are certain problems with the theory, which is why Einstein proposed his General Theory of Relativity, because he was not satisfied with Newton's theory. The result is that the theory of gravity that exists today is a hybrid with each theory complementing the others weaknesses, but it remains that we do not have a true physical understanding of the force of gravity. We only have a model that mirrors the effects. We can explain the motion it causes mathematically but we do not know why it happens in the first place. This person has suggested a theory to explain what we do not know and this is healthy scientific progress. Not necesarily correct, but a step nontheless. Anyways its not my theory, if you want to dismiss it, read the book so you understand what they are saying before you do that so readily. I stand by my previous post. There is no need to explain the principles of gravity to me, I am an engineering student and have studied them before.

Quote:
Gravity was rather poorly understood until Isaac Newton formulated his law of gravitation in the 17th century. Newton's theory is still widely used for many practical purposes, though for more advanced work it has been supplanted by Einstein's general relativity. While a great deal is now known about the properties of gravity, the ultimate cause of the gravitational force remains an open question and gravity remains an important topic of scientific research.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity
Bondings
Xipha wrote:
The result is that the theory of gravity that exists today is a hybrid with each theory complementing the others weaknesses, but it remains that we do not have a true physical understanding of the force of gravity. We only have a model that mirrors the effects. We can explain the motion it causes mathematically but we do not know why it happens in the first place. This person has suggested a theory to explain what we do not know and this is healthy scientific progress. Not necesarily correct, but a step nontheless.

That's exactly what science does. It takes facts, what we observe and makes a theory. And with every new and more precise observations and experiments, the theory gets better and better. By changing the theory.

That's exactly why creationism is not a scientific theory. It's not based of facts but on a literal interpretation of the bible. It isn't able to be changed. There won't be a Newton --> Einstein --> Quantum Mechanics --> ... evolution. The world was made on 7 days without questioning. The world is 7000 years old, it isn't possible to be older, no matter what data you get. (while scientists took a very long way to reach 13.7+-0.2 billion years)

Which facts/observations caused creationists to believe that the universe was created in 7 days? Which facts caused creationists to believe that the world is 7000 years old? Which facts caused creationists to believe that a talking snake gave an apple to Adam and Eve? Which facts caused creationists to believe that Adam and Eve existed? Which facts caused the creationists to believe that god created the universe? Which facts are needed to change those assumptions? Or better, is there a possible fact/observation to change them?

All scientific theories are based on observations. That's the definition of science.
Quote:
The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.

The evolution theory, big bang theory, gravity theories, the speed of light, age of the universe ... are all based on observations. Of course some assumptions were made to come to the theories and values. But they change! Not so long ago, the age of the universe was supposed to be around 15 billion years to some observations of objects supposed to be 15 billions of years old. New observations were 13.5 billion of years, less then the in current 13.7 billion. However, if someone proofs that something is 20 billion of years old, then the theories will change again.

Without taking in consideration the bible, you will never come to the conclusions of creationists.
ocalhoun
Bondings wrote:
Without taking in consideration the bible, you will never come to the conclusions of creationists.


Who then wrote the bible?
1) God worte it (through the various prophets), and he knew
2) Somebody who didn't believe what they were writing
3) Somebody who did come to the conclusions of the creationists without the influence of the bible. (which you say is impossible)

First of all Bondings says #3 is impossible, so that one's out


Now consider the extreme improbability of someone writing such an exauhstive work when they didn't believe what they were wirting...
Unless they were completely dedicated to proclaiming what they wrote as truth, it would not have been copied and would be lost to civilization.

Therefore #2 is infinately unlikely


That leaves one conclusion: #1) God wrote it.

How's that for proving the existance of God?
So it's proven assuming two things:

A- Bondings was right (of course)
B- Nobody can be quite hypocritical enough to make #2 plausable. (it does terrible things to the mind)
Bondings
Ocalhoun, science is not based on the bible. Science is based on observations. And the bible is only a very litle part of all observations. I only said that if you don't take into consideration the bible, you won't get to those conclusions.

Quote:
3) Somebody who did come to the conclusions of the creationists without the influence of the bible.

Of course some people came to the same conclusion as the bible; they wrote it. I meant that without knowing the bible, you would never come to exactly that conclusion. Scientists, however, are able to come independantly to the same results.

To answer your question, it was written by a lot of people. The old testament is a collection of stories like that of Adam and Eve and the flood. The same stories with different details were also told by other people, they just didn't write them down. Native Americans also had their own stories about how the earth was created, ...
ocalhoun
Bondings wrote:

Without taking in consideration the bible, you will never come to the conclusions of creationists.

Bondings wrote:
Of course some people came to the same conclusion as the bible; they wrote it. I meant that without knowing the bible, you would never come to exactly that conclusion.


I am sensing contradiction here...
Bondings
ocalhoun wrote:
Bondings wrote:

Without taking in consideration the bible, you will never come to the conclusions of creationists.

Bondings wrote:
Of course some people came to the same conclusion as the bible; they wrote it. I meant that without knowing the bible, you would never come to exactly that conclusion.


I am sensing contradiction here...

I go to the beach and pick 100 sand grains. Without knowing those sand grains, you would never pick the same grains. And of course I picked them myself, it doesn't change the fact that you won't pick the same ones.
ocalhoun
Perhaps, but theories about the origin of the universe are hardly as prolific as grains of sand.

Also, what about all of the other world religeons? Have not most of them come to seperate conclusions that are somewhat simular.

Also, the bible states that God always has been and always will be. Nobody created God. If you find that hard to swallow, then where did your big bang come from?
Bondings
ocalhoun wrote:
Perhaps, but theories about the origin of the universe are hardly as prolific as grains of sand.

It was only to explain what I meant, that you won't come to the same conclusion. I didn't want to compare the sand with the universe theories.
ocalhoun wrote:
Also, what about all of the other world religeons? Have not most of them come to seperate conclusions that are somewhat simular.

The three big religions are basically the same, just a different interpretation of the same religion and god. They all share the same old testament, if I'm not mistaken.

However, there are thousands of other religions with completely different stories and gods like the Romans/Greek gods or all the different religions in Africa, Asia and America (native Americans).

Native Americans didn't come to the same conclusions as they never heard about the bible.
ocalhoun wrote:
Also, the bible states that God always has been and always will be. Nobody created God. If you find that hard to swallow, then where did your big bang come from?

The origin of the big bang is a completely different story than the big bang. The big bang is a universe being created from a singularity, including time. There isn't enough information at the moment to make stable theories of what caused the big bang to be created. One of the most cited is the string theory with a lot of dimensions and universes (big bangs) being created by strings making a collision. I don't know much about it and it is way more complex than a big bang. We are only able to think in our own dimensions.

Wether it is god or something else, there is always a need for something to have always been there. Our human brain isn't good in understanding unlimited concepts both in time and space.
beshoy80
KHO wrote:
l believe God created us all, and l believe this not because l've been preached to my whole life, or that l have a need for something to fill the "gap" l believe because His power is shown to me, and l have witnessed miracles first hand. And this on top of the fact that, when you read the Bible, you will see it say things that science goes against, then a few years later, science will say they were wrong and this is right.

Every day l feel the awesome power of my God, so that is why l know He exists beyond a shadow of a doubt!

I am agree with that
also
God is love so he ceated the human with the ability of love
god is free so he ceated the human as a free creature "he gives us the ability to refuse him"
God creatrd wonderfull things which the science try to explore them every day
ocalhoun
Oh, yeah, to get back on the topic...
I have witnessed miracles as well.
for example:
A good friend of mine was diagnosed via cat scan with a brain tumor.
His name is Nick Aiossa.
He was scheduled for surgury.
The Sunday before he went into surgury, we took him to the front of the church and prayed for him.
He went in for the surgury and they took another scan.
He was competely healthy, the surgury was called off!
benwhite
In case no one is aware, there is an increasingly popular camp that has numbered the authors of the Old Testament to four-to-five separate authors based on linguistic analysis: grammar, vocab, style, etc. as opposed to just Moses.
beshoy80
let us say that I am a programer(God) and I coded a very complecated program(Human) which is composed of million process each process composed of million object each object composed of million function .... etc
this program have the ability to collect data and guess results(observe and teach himself) so it can devolop it's knoledge base also it can make copies from it self (propagation)

After thousands of years .........
That program say a jock that he created by an accident Shocked
can any one calculate the probability of this accident Exclamation
notes: its not one accident its million of million of million ..... accidents
millons of code lines ...... one semicolone can fail it

And if so .... Confused all of theas accidents happend (big bang)
can u explain who creat the rowmaterials of this stage(big bang)
and if u did so can u explain the previous stage and so on .....
it should have a begining that begining I called GOD

He is the creator and he is my good shepherd
Jack_Hammer
Before the bible there where lots of other religions which had the same kind of beliefes and structures, and after.
Soulfire
Jack_Hammer wrote:
Before the bible there where lots of other religions which had the same kind of beliefes and structures, and after.


There is no after the bible, there is no after God. God wasn't created, He just is and forever will be.

How do we know that He didn't cause the big bang to happen? The Bible doesn't say he didn't, but it doesn't say he did.
Xipha
Bondings wrote:
Xipha wrote:
The result is that the theory of gravity that exists today is a hybrid with each theory complementing the others weaknesses, but it remains that we do not have a true physical understanding of the force of gravity. We only have a model that mirrors the effects. We can explain the motion it causes mathematically but we do not know why it happens in the first place. This person has suggested a theory to explain what we do not know and this is healthy scientific progress. Not necesarily correct, but a step nontheless.

That's exactly what science does. It takes facts, what we observe and makes a theory. And with every new and more precise observations and experiments, the theory gets better and better. By changing the theory.

That's exactly why creationism is not a scientific theory. It's not based of facts but on a literal interpretation of the bible. It isn't able to be changed. There won't be a Newton --> Einstein --> Quantum Mechanics --> ... evolution. The world was made on 7 days without questioning. The world is 7000 years old, it isn't possible to be older, no matter what data you get. (while scientists took a very long way to reach 13.7+-0.2 billion years)

Which facts/observations caused creationists to believe that the universe was created in 7 days? Which facts caused creationists to believe that the world is 7000 years old? Which facts caused creationists to believe that a talking snake gave an apple to Adam and Eve? Which facts caused creationists to believe that Adam and Eve existed? Which facts caused the creationists to believe that god created the universe? Which facts are needed to change those assumptions? Or better, is there a possible fact/observation to change them?

All scientific theories are based on observations. That's the definition of science.
Quote:
The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.

The evolution theory, big bang theory, gravity theories, the speed of light, age of the universe ... are all based on observations. Of course some assumptions were made to come to the theories and values. But they change! Not so long ago, the age of the universe was supposed to be around 15 billion years to some observations of objects supposed to be 15 billions of years old. New observations were 13.5 billion of years, less then the in current 13.7 billion. However, if someone proofs that something is 20 billion of years old, then the theories will change again.

Without taking in consideration the bible, you will never come to the conclusions of creationists.


What "facts" cause evolutionists to believe that life arose through random processes? What "facts" cause evolutionists to believe that there is no God? What "facts" cause evolutionists to believe that although it is unobserved mutations really do create more genetic information? What "facts" cause evolutionists to believe that there is no God?

What you seem to believe are facts are only interpretations. It is no more scientific to believe in chance as the ulimate cause of everything than it is to believe that God is. They are both untestable assumptions believed on in faith. Which is why origins science is purely a matter of curiosity rather than functionality. The evidence observed today can scientiffically support either side. Neither framework is based purely on science, but on beliefs. So it is hypocritical to argue that creationism is not scientific, because the frameworks are based purely on faith. So sure a lot of scientists choose to put there faith in chance. I don't think chance is viable, and neither do many scientists so we put our faith in God. Either way its still faith. Operational science on the other hand is unaffected by faith as it is based on repeatable, testable observations and assumptions. There is no way to test the assumptions of origins science because the past is not repeatable.

Creationism is based on the scientific fact that the universe exists and contains incredible complexity, which would point to an intelligent designer. It is based on the fact that the universe is made of incredibly complex systems even on the microscopic level. It is based on the fact thst life is inredibly diverse and incredibly detailed in its individual functions. It is based on the fact that the universe is governed by observable laws that cause there to be order, and that these laws allow cause and effect to be related, and even predicted. Evolutionists interperet these facts as being the result of random chance, creationists interperet them as being the result of an intelligent, powerful creator. Is any one of these interpretations less valid or scientific? These interpretations lead to the basic assumptions that each group has adopted to explain and interperet every other fact in the universe. Just as an evolutionist would interperet similarities in DNA to mean a common ancestor, a creationist would interperet them to mean a common designer. And as to Adam and Eve existing, is it so unreasonable to believe that humans are all decended from two people, when evolutionists believe that all humans are decended from an ameoba as well as the rest of life?

As to theories changing, the individual interpretations are free to change within the framework, but the framework itself never changes. (For example the age of the earth, the individual dates may change but the framework does not change) This includes both evolution and creation. Just because one side does not believe the other sides framework is not correct does not mean the are within their rights to dismiss it as nonscientific, especially when there own framework is equally based on faith. If undisputable evidence did exist that there was a creator would evolutionists be willing to accept it or would they be too stuck in there own framework to accept it? Unfortunately this question will never be answered because we cannot go back in time which is the only way to get undisputable proof for either side of the debate.

Another thing, scientists who believe in evolution are not as objective as they would like everyone to think. They think they need billions of years for evolution to work, so they look for billions of years. They discount any results that do not add up to what they think they should be. They refuse to accept any results that do not fit within there framework. As well most to not take into consideration other methods of dating besides radiometric dating many of which give evidence for a young earth such as the salinity of oceans, helium in the atmosphere, and the erosion rates of continents. These are scientific dating methods as well. If the evidence does not add up scientists discount it or explain it away using just-so stories. And they conduct radiometric dating methods using assumptions of the starting conditions, which have no way of being shown to be correct. they choose the "correct" results of radiometric dating based on what they think these results should be, often based on geologic "relationships" which are also just interpretations and can be explained differently by creation theory using a different set of base assumptions. If the results don't match what they think they should be they throw them out and try again. Some inconsistencies in radiometric methods include carbon-14 present in fossils that are found in rock that is dated as billions of years old (for one specific example see: http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i1/dating.asp ), inconsistincies between different radiometric dating methods, carbon-14 dating giving completely wrong results for objects of known age (such as bones in dated graves).

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v24/i4/radiometric.asp (read the blue box at the bottom)

Origins science requires faith no matter which side you take. Operational science is not affected by your beliefs of origin science as it deals with repeatable, observable events that are due to the laws of the universe. Unlike origins science they can change as we gain new information and understanding because the observations and the assumptions are testable where as with origins science we have only the observations interpereted based on an untestable frame of assumptions.

So evolutionists put there faith in chance, creationists put theirs in God. This doesn't make one more scientific than the othe, in fact the framework of either side is non scientific in nature, just a matter of personal belief.
The only difference is if I did decide to put my faith in chance and naturalistic causes I would be perfectly justified to survive by any means necessary, including murder, stealth and any means that animals use. However God gave you the free will to choose so it is not in my rights or power to force you to believe anything. Your basic assumptions, along with those of scientists and everyone else are largely a matter of personal conviction. Who is to judge whose basic, unproven assumptions are more scientific, or more valid than anyone else's?
Bondings
Xipha wrote:
What "facts" cause evolutionists to believe that life arose through random processes?

By observing the fact that older organisms are less complex than newer organisms. By observing an evolution of organisms.
Quote:
What "facts" cause evolutionists to believe that there is no God?

None. You seem to confuse atheism (a belief/religion) with science. Most scientists believe in a god, but this shouldn't influence their opinions. Science is not the study of god.
Xipha wrote:
What "facts" cause evolutionists to believe that although it is unobserved mutations really do create more genetic information?

The problem is that you really can't talk about the abstract concept of information in genetics. Does a cat have more genetic information than a dog? Or does a lion have more genetic information than a cat? Or the inverse? And if yes, what is added? Getting bigger eyes, changing skin colour, ... are those new genetic information? And if not, what would be considered new genetic information?

And the mutations are observed. Just take resistance against antibiotics of bacteria.
Quote:
Antibiotic resistance is the ability of a microorganism to withstand the effects of an antibiotic. Antibiotic resistance naturally develops via natural selection through random mutation and plasmid exchange between bacteria of the same species. Antibiotic resistance can also be introduced artificially into a microorganism through transformation protocols. If a bacterium carries several resistance genes, it is called multiresistant or, informally, a superbug.

Due to natural selection, the bacteria gets resistant against antibiotics. That's a new characteristic for that bacteria and thus new genetic information, right? And is natural selection called chance?
Quote:
So sure a lot of scientists choose to put there faith in chance. I don't think chance is viable, and neither do many scientists so we put our faith in God.

Science is not a faith. Science is "the observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena".
Quote:
The only difference is if I did decide to put my faith in chance and naturalistic causes I would be perfectly justified to survive by any means necessary, including murder, stealth and any means that animals use.

Science has nothing to do with morality either. It doesn't say what's 'good' or 'bad'. It tries to explain what happened based on facts. Science doesn't justify any acts. Morality does.
PaladinWiz
This ties in with the biology debate:

Creatism vs. Evolutionism.

Which is one is correct? Rolling Eyes
rk2010
All religion is made up
yatria
religion is just another way for power and command

it's a drawback in our society remaining from old times
when people couldn't read and write, further more to think...
Xipha
Bondings wrote:
Science is not a faith. Science is "the observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena".


What you are describing is operational (repeatable, testable, observable) science. Evolution is not operational science but origins science, which is the theoretical explanation of phenomena in the past based on interpretation of facts in the present using a framework of basic assumptions. No matter which side you take it still requires some basic beliefs based outside of science, and these assumptions are what you place your faith in. Operational science on the other hand does not require faith, as it is repeatable, observable, and testable through experimental investigation.

Bondings wrote:
By observing the fact that older organisms are less complex than newer organisms. By observing an evolution of organisms.


As I have said before this is an interpretation, not a factual observation. To make this assertion you must assume that the organisms are in fact older in the first place, and that there were a series of intermediate steps (which have not been observed). The evolution of organisms has not been observed. Many scientists equivocate natural selection to mean evolution and then say that this proves microbe-to-man evolution. No one denies that change occurs over time, but saying that the horizontal and downward changing trends of natural selection proves upward change is an erroneous conclusion.

Bondings wrote:
None. You seem to confuse atheism (a belief/religion) with science. Most scientists believe in a god, but this shouldn't influence their opinions. Science is not the study of god.


This is true of operational science, but origins science has everything to do with beliefs. And if as according to you beliefs don’t really matter then how are you justified in asking why creationists believe that there is a creator? Is there only allowed to be one scientific assumption? How can you justify basing your science on an unscientific assumption that there is no creator, and then accuse creationists of being unscientific for making the assumption that there is one? There is no proof that it is not correct, and no proof that the evolutionist assumption of no creator is correct, so until someone can prove an assumption wrong that assumption is still valid in origins science. If you don’t think that origins science is base don beliefs you need to look again. In general people who do not believe in a creator believe in evolution, those who do believe in a creator believe in creation, and then there are a few who try and marry these beliefs. To a creationist science is not the study of God; it is the study of the order and laws of the universe God created. Is that so unscientific? Many evolutionist spokespeople have openly admitted the fact that they are trying to justify the existence of the universe without a creator. Why? Because they don’t believe there is one. In the lack of observable, repeatable, testable observations about the beginning of the universe and of life people must rely on personal beliefs. If so many scientists “believe in a god” why are they so stubborn about admitting even the possibility of creation? Obviously they do not believe in a god who is capable of creation, and so this belief is what they base their framework on. Origins science is all about belief, and explaining the existence of life in the framework of that belief.

Bondings wrote:
The problem is that you really can't talk about the abstract concept of information in genetics. Does a cat have more genetic information than a dog? Or does a lion have more genetic information than a cat? Or the inverse? And if yes, what is added? Getting bigger eyes, changing skin colour, ... are those new genetic information? And if not, what would be considered new genetic information?


You can talk about information in genetics. A cat has different information than a dog, that’s what makes it a cat. Now if that cat developed new, different genetic information that made it a dog that would be evolution. (and this sort of change has not been observed) As for the lion and a cat they would have very similar information. Let me give you a general example of how creation theory works. Let’s say God created a very general cat that had all the genetic information that all different kinds of cats that exist today. Then there is a catastrophic event, which drastically changes the ecological system, causing there to be many different ecological niches (the global flood). Now a couple of this kind of cat survive (at the time it would be the only species of cat), but the environment is very different. As the population grows and disperses some become isolated. In one particular environment the grass is predominantly tan coloured, causing those cats which have the genetic information that causes them to be tan to have an advantage. So those cats that do not have that information eventually die out and the information is lost. Now in another ecological niche it may be of advantage to be small, so the genetic information that causes cats to be large eventually is lost. The two new species do not necessarily have more information, just a more limited set of information that allows the species to be specialized for its particular environment. This is the type of natural selection that is observed today. It is a scientifically viable theory, especially because this same process can be observed (experiments have been done relocating animals such as guppies to ecological niches where there previously was none of this animal and the changes have been observed and have been noted to be a loss of information). New information would be for example the lion developing the genetic information to grow small feathers instead of fur, as feathers were never part of the original genetic code and require the production of entirely new proteins. Or develop the information for new internal organs. (note that these would have to be functioning organs as non-functioning organs would give no selection advantage, and could even cause harm)

Bondings wrote:
Due to natural selection, the bacteria gets resistant against antibiotics. That's a new characteristic for that bacteria and thus new genetic information, right? And is natural selection called chance?


Ok, antibiotic resistance is far from proof of evolution. New characteristics are not necessarily due to new information. Often it is existing information that has been suppressed by other information, and when that information is lost the suppressed information emerges. Also bacteria has been found to already posess the information that allows it to resist antibiotics before it is exposed to it. Bacteria was recovered from the gut of sailors who were frozen and preserved over 140 years ago, and some of the bacteria were found to be resistant to antibiotics that were not developed until nearly a century later. As well:

Quote:
Interestingly, where this happens, there is no clearcut evidence of information arising. All such mutations appear to be losses of information, degenerative changes. For example, loss of a control gene may enhance resistance to penicillin.3
Some antibiotics need to be taken into the bacterium to do their work. There are sophisticated chemical pumps in bacteria which can actively pump nutrients from the outside through the cell wall into the germ’s interior. Those germs which do this efficiently, when in the presence of one of these antibiotics, will therefore efficiently pump into themselves their own executioner.
However, what if one of these bacteria inherits a defective gene, by way of a DNA copying mistake (mutation) which will interfere with the efficiency of this chemical pumping mechanism? Although this bacterium will not be as good at surviving in normal circumstances, this defect actually gives it a survival advantage in the presence of the man-made poison.4 Once again, we see that information has been lost/corrupted, not gained.


As for chance, if someone does not cause an event it is usually attributed to chance. Creationists believe God is the cause of the existence of the universe and life. Evolutionists believe that a chance formation of chemicals caused the first living, self reproducing organism despite the fact that “ The probability of the chance formation of a hypothetical functional ‘simple’ cell, given all the ingredients, is acknowledged2 to be worse than 1 in 10^57800”
(And people claim that putting their trust in chance is not faith). They believe that “natural selection + random mutation” is the mechanism for evolution. If “random mutation” does not imply chance I don’t know what does.

Bondings wrote:
Science has nothing to do with morality either. It doesn't say what's 'good' or 'bad'. It tries to explain what happened based on facts. Science doesn't justify any acts. Morality does.


ok, sure science does not say what is good or bad. But evolution does say that all life evolved, and morality is a part of life. Why would it evolve? What survival advantage is being selected for? How does the knowledge of right and wrong help survival at all? How does morality help when the rest of nature is only concerned with its own survival? Who says that our morals evolved “right” in the first place? Who says anything “evolved right” at all? How do you know your thoughts are right if they are the product of random mutations?
Soulfire
Well, non-believers can continue trying to impress people with their know-it-all attitude. And if by chance there is no God (which of course I strongly believe in God and Christ), then what's wrong with living by the Christian doctrine? Teaching people to love one another instead of hate, teaching people to lead a simple and relaxed life, teaching people to be decent. Of course, that's just terrible!

*Sighs*

To me, atheists who complain about 'Merry Christmas' or 'Under God' in the pledge are just bitter people who are looking to bring some attention onto themselves. Pathetic way to live. Besides, who can give you refuge from the storm when you have no God? Luckily, everyone has second, third, fourth, and fith chances. Even more than that.
Anttu^^
Soulfire You are correct about that, Religions are often a thing that makes people relax and give them hope and peace. i too when i was younger like 6-10 years i prayed a lot an belived fully in the christian belief but now when i am older i know there are nothing like gods and stuff.
one of the main thing because i gave up my belief was because i understand that belifes are just belifes. and if i have to belive in something then i truly would belive in the Christian Religion.

The only thing i desire in life is that i wana live, i would do anything for living longer than the maximum of a average human life, anything for imortality. i want to explore the world, i wana know everything, i dont want to go to heaven i wana live in this place.

that is what i live for Razz
Soulfire
I just know that there is no way I could make it through this life without God. I seek refuge in Him, and he works through me. It's something unexplainable, something so awesome that words can't describe it.
Anttu^^
but i am sure of it is more harder to belive in yourself than god, because the human brain is a very difficult mater to understand, the mind can create lots of illusions and tought of stuff that realy does not exist.

I my self have tryed to master the human brains by studying it and trying to understand them.
benwhite
As has been said over and over, evolutionists aren't necessarily atheists. In fact many evolutionists do believe in God and his role in creation, just not "creationism" in the 7-day sense. Literal intepretation versus allegorical is the dividing line between creationism and evolution in this case, not atheism versus christianity.

No one is knocking christian morals in this thread. Morals are good. This is focused soley on evolution versus creationism.

People who complain about "merry christmas" do so as an example of church and state, not just because they dislike Christmas. Extreme atheists do this to enforce the separation as often as they, annoying as it may be to people who think it's a bit silly.

Modern medicine is operational science that is increasingly based on basic assumptions that include evolution. While creationists place God's influence at 6000 years ago, evolutionists who believe in God would place it at 13 billion years ago. In this case, the debate doesn't concern faith, it concerns biblical interpretation and scientic method.
crimsonessence
This is often a difficult and touchy subject. My mother was 7th day advent, my father is jewish and my aunts and uncles are mostly catholic. Altho we`re so different, there were never arguements over releigon.

So here i am in the middle of all of this.. I guess i dont fit in to any orgonized releigon... I always loved theoretical physics and questioning why things work the way they do. I guess i formed my opinions from thinging a whole lot. There was a time in my life where everything was taken away from me and i was alone with only myself, and i devoted a lot of time to spirituality.. rather than religon.

To sum things up i dont really think that there is a god that is looking at what we do and judging us.. I think of god as 'everything' . God is you and i.. its the reason things work.. it is the connection between all things in the universe and how they interact and relate.

Altho i do beleive differently.. im never disrespecful towards anyones beleifs.. religous or not. I think that most releigons have one thing in common: to do good and to live life. I jsut always saw orgonized releigon as a way to control ppl. Mabe like a guideline for a working society.

Weather releigon is good or bad? I think all things have good and bad aspects... just like technology and drugs and almost everything else.
Lennon
Why are you in this forum?
A search for the truth maybe.
There are many truths, and one truth to define all truths. Science and Religion are two truths part of the one same truth of metaphysics and theology.
The truth why you are here has many answers, but they all come under the truth that you are searching your innerself and the world around you for a goodness.
sammistrychnine
Right now we cannot sit here and say either way what exactly happened.

I personally don't believe that God created everything. It's a nice little idea, but there's conviently no way to prove it. One just has to put their faith in the power of some being they're never going to meet.

I'd much rather have cold hard facts showing me exactly what happened. I want evidence of God's creations. The only evidence available as of yet is leaning away from some supreme being and toward natural selection, evolution, etc.

I put my faith in things I can prove.
schumway
I think people spend too much time in church listening to scripture and not enough time experiencing it.

my beliefs are more towards nature and that there is some force or being out there that is helping out but I can not imagine sitting in church on sundays for a few hours and etc because someone says you have to... and who knows what is left of the original scripts from the bible re-writes?
Soulfire
schumway wrote:
I think people spend too much time in church listening to scripture and not enough time experiencing it.

my beliefs are more towards nature and that there is some force or being out there that is helping out but I can not imagine sitting in church on sundays for a few hours and etc because someone says you have to... and who knows what is left of the original scripts from the bible re-writes?


To some extent, I agree with your first comment. Our church is one hour long, we worship our God, we take communion in Christ, we sing our praise and joy - and then we leave for more fellowship during the day (usually in the form of a Sunday family dinner).

And I am pretty sure it's sin to rewrite the word of God.
blackheart
Soulfire wrote:
schumway wrote:
I think people spend too much time in church listening to scripture and not enough time experiencing it.

my beliefs are more towards nature and that there is some force or being out there that is helping out but I can not imagine sitting in church on sundays for a few hours and etc because someone says you have to... and who knows what is left of the original scripts from the bible re-writes?


To some extent, I agree with your first comment. Our church is one hour long, we worship our God, we take communion in Christ, we sing our praise and joy - and then we leave for more fellowship during the day (usually in the form of a Sunday family dinner).

And I am pretty sure it's sin to rewrite the word of God.


It might be a sin, but it's well and truly happened over time. I mean, look at the hundreds of scriptures (we all know exist) that have been conveniently left out of the Holy Bible itself over time).

And I mean, look at the reason Christianity formed over the Catholic church...

Religion has only blurred the "path" to "God" with hear-say and conjecture - and more than out-dated ritual.

I can't imagine a God that would seriously have the egotistical issues to support needing countless millions to "worship" his very existence. A mere recognition and respect of his existence should be enough. Perhaps the occasional "worship" if you will... but nothing like we see today.
the_mariska
blackheart wrote:

I can't imagine a God that would seriously have the egotistical issues to support needing countless millions to "worship" his very existence. A mere recognition and respect of his existence should be enough. Perhaps the occasional "worship" if you will... but nothing like we see today.

I guess God does NOT need to be worshipped, the only thing he wants us to do is to love. And all of those 'rules', 'precepts' and so on are only because people are weak and make mistakes. It all is done for us, to have the strength for living a life of love.

And back to the topic, Bible is a book written with the spirit of God, but by normal people. It is not about how the world did come into existence, it is about who created it and why. All the rest about 7 days is just a poem.
IceCameron
Ahh bugger it!

I say sience, that other stuff just doesn't make sence.
adwya
religion


iam muslim




religion


first


and


last
Arnie
yatria wrote:
religion is just another way for power and command

it's a drawback in our society remaining from old times
when people couldn't read and write, further more to think...
Orly? It would be a pretty daring statement that science isn't a way for power and command. It's been abused big time as well by people that wanted power and command. Chemistry, aviation, computer technology and who knows what got boosted big time by Hitler's war scientists. And in case you weren't able to think of it, religion has done good to people as well as bad. Just like science. (I'm not answering the question here what is the difference between situations where religion or science does good and where it does bad. That's probably too off-topic.)

By the way, there are some pretty special scientific things in the Bible for example. Take gemateria for example. Genesis chapters have high primes in them, I came across that when making a maths project.

On a third note, you're judging religion by the standards of science. By those standards it's a drawback from non-scientific times, as you said. But as I said way back in this topic, it's not fair to judge science by religion or vice-versa. That's why the debate can't be solved.
SunburnedCactus
Arnie wrote:
On a third note, you're judging religion by the standards of science. By those standards it's a drawback from non-scientific times, as you said. But as I said way back in this topic, it's not fair to judge science by religion or vice-versa. That's why the debate can't be solved.


Now there's an intelligent statement. Kudos.
essentialmedia
Okay this thread RULES, seriously it does. One of the few times that I have seen a true conversation pan out. Not too much hate and some actual logic thrown in there. Got to admit Slick 50's or whatever the real name is was my favorite. I LOVE bible thumpers!! Craziest of them all!!

SO COOL

Wink
Lennon
In the beginning there was nothing, (t=0 therefore space = 0 , space-time)

But science and awareness come later and questioned the nothing, the created or evolved questioned it's beginning.

Fascinating.
igor123d
I believe that science and religion should not be viewed as opposing forces but rather as two perspectives at the universe. Science stemms from the premise that nothing can be assumed but proofs for everything must be brought in order to consider these hypotheses true. Relgion on the other hand seeks to explain the world through supernatural or devine elements. Although in some cases an argument can be made that some religions include archaic element now proven incorrect by science, another argument can be made tha religion is more general and provides philophical answers to question that scinece cannot answer such as the beginning of the world (not only the Big Bang but the first cause) and the meaning of life (not just the concert of metabolc proceses).
Jat Goodwin
heres somthing to think about. There is no proof for evolution. If you can prove evolution i will send you 1000$ over pay pal. now that there is no proof
of evolution you have to believe in it, therfore evolution is a religion.
now as for science vs religion(pardon my spelling) i think that its the same thing.
Arnie
Depends on your definition of proof, if you tinker enough on it, sure evolution can be proven. Nearly everything can be proven, it just needs the communis opinio to be accepted. :/
Lennon
You really should take a look at the whole topic before posting, there's loads of proof, and a definition of proof lying around, and alternatives to evolution have been proposed.

Summary...
pfrllc wrote:
Actually, science has used its own reason to prove the bible wrong in its own mind. Think about the second story of creation, how the rivers rose out of the ground. Yeah, like that can happen through physics. There are also points that have been connected with science, such as the timeframe of the story of creation. The book The Science of God by Gerald L. Schroeder shows this relevance through the use of an exponential curve and the Big Bang Theory. The only reason that ideas are proved wrong is the influence of opinion. If you are Christian, you know that the dogma of the Chritian Church is that the Bible is not factual truth at all times, but "religious truth". Otherwise, you might think that the Bible is all historical truth, so you may think that you can prove the Bible wrong by physical means.

Lennon wrote:
The bible and science both agree at t=0 (time zero of the universe), nothing exist's. In the beginning there was nothing. Quantum physics suggests there was radiation immediately at the first instant of expansion, then there was matter. Astronomy continues then the sun and the stars, then the earth. Geology continues then there was water. Evolution then continues - there was life in the sea, there was birds, there was animals, and then there was man.

Lennon wrote:
Geology measures earth at 4.5billion, I've already pm'd a few people to get that right coz it's not millions. Astronomy gives the universe at 13.5 billion years old. Microbiology puts ancient bacteria at 2-3billion years ago. The 1:1000 theory suggests 10000 yrs old. Another example is sedimentation. Geology says sedimatation layers at the ice caps and grand canyon etc at millions of years. Another layer-forming pattern is observed in rapid lateral flow, as in the case of floods. The grand canyon could have been eroded by a global flood, and the layers formed from the rapid lateral flow in the flood era. Also, Given Adam and Eve's age, and given Dinosaurs atmospheric environment, and microbial atmospheric evolution, the atmostphere could have been much much more [H2O] saturated, as much as 20% higher, which could have reduced microwave radiation on earth's surface, allowing human's to survive much longer, and animals to develop much more. At the flood, the atmospheric moisture collapsed as the earth cooled, and the magnetic field flipped, and the water condensed in mass global rain. The flood wiped out the dinosaurs, contaminated the 14C content in biological remains affecting Carbon Dating, and eroded the Yatacama (meteorite impact) crater, eroded the Grand Canyon, allowed mass ice formation at the poles due to rapid freezing etc. Scientific theory no.3. this is just 1 theory to battle evolution currently in practice by experts.

DecayClan wrote:
The only way to prove to me that your “theory” has a hope of becoming taught in schools is this: prove to me that your God exists

I will not start saying things about persuading you that he does.
I will tell you an other thing:
PROVE ME THAT HE DOES NOT EXIST
If you can't prove that he doesn't exist, therefore he must exist...
In maths, when you can't prove that something doesn't exist, then it exists...
Prove me that he doesn't-if you can-And not with things that have the same credibility, as the ones that i would probably use to persuade that he does indead exist...
DO IT!CAN YOU?
Arnie
What is solid proof to you isn't solid proof to everybody.
please.be.quiet
this should be common sense. science is proven, religion is not. SCIENCE
schumway
find it funny that there is debates about religion vs science... then if you happen to be in a room with all the folks who believe in the religous aspect then it is what religion... christians vs non... then it is ... prod vs cath... then it is new vs old... LOL

always in debate...

personally I am more of an earthy fellow... believe there is some "energy" or whatever it is called that keeps things in alignment and working together but more on a naturalistic point of view. Like native americans (although I am not one, at least not full blood practicing).

I would definately say they are separate topics... science can be proven vs implied/perceived/etc

but when I am looking for solitude and some personal time.. I would not go and sit in a temple of stones with the thought I was talking to god/spirit/whatever I would want to be away from the capitalistic part of spirituality and be with nature.

just my useless 2 cents worth...

course I have also started with astronomy... it is amazing the science that guides the planets 'and the stars' and how it is predicted... as well as staring out into the reaches of space... something I would have been arrested and killed for a few hundred years ago...

and since I also enjoy sailing... I am SOME GLAD the earth is not flat!
Jack_Hammer
blackstripes wrote:
how bout a topic that a lot of ppl can relate to? did "God" really create the earth? or was is just a form of evolution from super nova? was adam and eve who were really the first humans? or were we monkeys to begin with that evolved to a human state? ok... so sum facts could be false both on science and religion... i mean, wut it seems to me... ppl believe in religion just by reading the bible... but then again, the bible is just a book. ppl could possibly just be reading sum stories made by a fictional writer in the past. or maybe not. science does give in a lot of facts, but then they are pretty hard to understand them... for example.... err..... like a goldfish! scientists say that the goldfish has a bad memory... but how the hell would they know that? they cant speak to a fish!! or even know wut runs in their minds. okay... so the goldfish isnt really a good example on how the world is created... but still, it does give a point that scientist sumtmes dont really know anything. so in everyone's opinion... wut do u think it is? was it a "God" that created the world and all of mankind? or was it evolution?


The bible is multiple books;
Old Testament

* Genesis
* Exodus
* Leviticus
* Numbers
* Deuteronomy
* Joshua
* Judges
* Ruth
* 1 Samuel
* 2 Samuel
* 1 Kings
* 2 Kings
* 1 Chronicles
* 2 Chronicles
* Ezra
* Nehemiah
* Tobit
* Judith
* Esther
* 1 Maccabees
* 2 Maccabees
* Job
* Psalms
* Proverbs
* Ecclesiastes





* Song of Songs
* Wisdom
* Sirach
* Isaiah
* Jeremiah
* Lamentations
* Baruch
* Ezekiel
* Daniel
* Hosea
* Joel
* Amos
* Obadiah
* Jonah
* Micah
* Nahum
* Habakkuk
* Zephaniah
* Haggai
* Zechariah
* Malachi

New Testament

* Matthew
* Mark
* Luke





* John
* Acts
* Romans
* 1 Corinthians
* 2 Corinthians
* Galatians
* Ephesians
* Philippians
* Colossians
* 1 Thessalonians
* 2 Thessalonians
* 1 Timothy
* 2 Timothy
* Titus
* Philemon
* Hebrews
* James
* 1 Peter
* 2 Peter
* 1 John
* 2 John
* 3 John
* Jude
* Revelation
schumway
evolution and science created it all... or whatever that 'energy' is that makes up gravity and constants in the universe.

I dont think it is really covered in the bible... knowing/remembering they were some dudes chill'n with jesus and the stories have been handed down and passed around and etc over the years... look at the difference from the old and new books How can there be such differences... well interpretation/translation and beliefs.

re: the gold fish and how do you know what their memory is since you can not talk to them... well... as part of scientific process.... you have other ways to come to conclusions... such as experimentation and observation. I do not know the background but it was likely related to food and the fish knew where the food was or by the amount of light or whatever.
rasputinrockband
First of all, to not believe in science is foolish. You can avoid theories all you want because yes, in fact they are just that, theories. But there are physical realities that cannot be avoided, and that you simply must believe in, the science of gravity for example. This is not a matter of belief or disbelief, if one throws himself from a rooftop, then one will enivitably fall.

In very much the same way, there are realities in time and space that we must observe. For example, every event must have an antecedant, or something before it. In our world nothing occurs or is created from nothing, the law of constant composition dictates this.

So to be the very first object or phenominon in existance is to be Godly. As our minds cannot possibly comprehend an original spark, or bang, or whatever, there is no option but to believe in an original creator, regardless of the form of this creator. To be an athiest is neive, and close minded. There must be devine antecedant, it is the only plauseable explanation.

In conclusion God, as a scientific explanation would be the original precursor to all events in our existance, and the master of all scientists. Now whether you choose to label this god, is a matter of religious discussion, and is set upon by your personal experiences and learned behaviours of your individual and cultural existance.
Arnie
Everyone would (and does, btw) go crazy when somebody of Frihost says "you're foolish if you don't believe in God". But when somebody says "you're foolish if you don't believe in science" it seems totally normal. Science is also a belief and some people take it to pretty (bad) extremes. What you are describing in your first paragraph isn't science. Science is something man does. Science is not the things you describe, but it studies them. And thus it can be wrong.

BTW this is related to a similar discussion in this topic on page 2.
william jones
i don't think that evolution nessesarily has to exclude god
the fact of the matter is it doesn't matter what you believe.
you will not know until you die
what happened at the birth of this planet
what would that possiably have to do with who or what created the earth
do you not think that god has th power to make evolution occur
thats my 2 cents
Lennon
The bible has historical accuracy (recently discovered dead sea scrolls and coptic gospels and roman historical records)
Evolution has scientific accuracy (patterns indicating inter-species relationships and historical data).

nobody here has a right to condemn either as fiction or make-believe because there's so much evidence out there to back up both topics.

Exclusion is when two things don't match and you must admit they're not identical, and so far evolution is an inclusive theory for species differentiation.

There's no need to rhyme off all the books of the bible.

Religion and science should not exclude each other, and they don't.
SkullPizza
Lennon wrote:
The bible has historical accuracy (recently discovered dead sea scrolls and coptic gospels and roman historical records)


Just because there is scientific accuracy as to the fact that people were writing and speaking of this religion thousands of years ago doesn't mean that there is any evidence of any sort of divinity that has shaped things.

I don't believe anyone is disputing that people believed it was true back then and had an urg to write about it.

Give me a reproducable experiment that proves divinity and then I will think it is true. Until then there is nothing to say other than "I think it is true cause I wanna."
Disco_Dance_monkey
I agree with Lennon somewhat^^ and would like to add that whether you believe in a religion or not (I myself am an athiest), It is a very necessary part of human nature, and has been before scientific inquiry.

Religion eases the burden in ways science never could. If, for example times are hard for a person, what's the use of knowing about how light travels or evolution? Rather, if you have a religion, it gives you hope and meaning to your life, where it would otherwise be absent.

I myself need hard evidence to believe in God, Religion, etc.

P.S. - So in effect, I have just contradicted my beliefs and in stating this I have contradicted myself again, cause technically athiesm is believing in nothing...
SkullPizza
I'd say you're more of an agnostic. But in any case I am agnostic and have fell on hard times, I have never needed religion to pull me out of them.
schumway
I just find it funny that when people can prove something... they say it is devine... like the sun god, the moon god, the god of farmers, etc

more people have been killed because of their beliefs in god than there has been deaths in the belief of science.

then when science 'indrudes' on the religious door step there is usually an overwhelming desire to thump the scientists.

when you are having debats it is funny when you get to a point when the answer is.. well god made it so.

no one knows he made is so... because no one was around to document it. There is no proof, just that if it can not be explained... because humans from the time they are children til the day they die (or whatever happens after that) need to know who why how when and what... mostly why/how and if you can not explain the why/how... the default is usually... well... cause god made it that way.

I find that typically... for comfort we need to know there is someone/somehting/some-God out there watching over us... we are not just spiraling through space aimlessly and we must have a reason to be here.. esp before andromeda comes crashing through our milkyway... cause... you know... God wanted that to happen and it will... and we can even tell when it will happen so we better figure this out pretty soon... course... soon... like time... and everything else... is relative.

as for the big bang or whatever... like everything else... because people dont know TODAY there is a bunch of conjecture and theories out there and as we gather data, and learn new scientific methods (or perhaps god can wisper them to us one at a time because he likes cruel jokes of wants his experiment to last just a little bit longer)... I am sure it will all be proven.

even by taking a piece of graph paper... and pretending it is dust spewn around space... and with gravity being in every mass... they will start to wiggle and giggle and start moving towards eachother.... it is not that far off to imagine the pull of all these clusters of mass pulling on eachother and etc that at some point at some time... a bunch of it was all pulled together into a big bash/bang/whatever and the resulting collision caused mass to be thrown in all directions...

anything is possible... probable... dunno... but I am pretty sure that if I do not know the answer... the default wont be because God said. I will want to know why if it bothers me to need to know that badly I will continue until I find out.

most things in science helped explain away the mysterious "evils" of "God-like" forces... we know why the tides come in now, we know why volcanos erupt... we were not civilized nor did we have the intelligence 100s-1000s of years ago... but as we used scientific methods and as technology and sharing information has enabled us to move from hunter gatherers to learners/thinkers/doers it has enabled us to understand the mysteries of the world/life/universe/etc.

not saying that religious people are not intelligent I am just commenting that as we continue to have the ability to learn and discover, there will be more understanding as to how things work and why... not a default of because God made it that way. Fine... perhaps s/he-it did but there is still a reason why it is that way... scientifically.

There are still parts of the earth... that a bic lighter will make you the God of fire...
shadedflame
mike4652 wrote:
Quote:
darwins theory

This says it all THEORY! A theory is something not proven yet!
Charles him self said that evolution was a theory. And there is no physical prof. All living creatures re-produce after thier kind. nothing is half of one kind and half of another. Nothing was created by chance! All living things on earth serve a purpose. Even salt water helps keep the earth warm. that in it self proves design. Wink

and this is science, everything has a purpose, down to the atom everything has a specific function, diiferent combinations of protons, nuetrons, and electrons make different types of molecules, different types of olecule make difernt types of cells, different types of cells make different types of organisms. I peronally beleive in String Theory. I know people that beleive that religion should be a theory, but I personally believ that since there is no evidence in religion, it does not to be anything and in drawins time evolution could not be proven now it can I can prove it to you with one word.
FINCH.
The finch is a bird that has recently inhabited all areas of the world except australia, it has evolved to adapt to its surounding, in warmer climates, it devolped, stronger talons and a stronger beak to pry open cactuses. AN example is how the finch became the cardinal, the finch displaced from its native home adapted to pine forest, so it now dawns a thick, triangular shaped beak, used to saw through pine.
shadedflame
Lennon wrote:
The bible and science both agree at t=0 (time zero of the universe), nothing exist's. In the beginning there was nothing. Quantum physics suggests there was radiation immediately at the first instant of expansion, then there was matter. Astronomy continues then the sun and the stars, then the earth. Geology continues then there was water. Evolution then continues - there was life in the sea, there was birds, there was animals, and then there was man.

Uhh no In science the universe was always here there was never a "time zero"
DecayClan wrote:
The only way to prove to me that your “theory” has a hope of becoming taught in schools is this: prove to me that your God exists

I will not start saying things about persuading you that he does.
I will tell you an other thing:
PROVE ME THAT HE DOES NOT EXIST
If you can't prove that he doesn't exist, therefore he must exist...
In maths, when you can't prove that something doesn't exist, then it exists...
Prove me that he doesn't-if you can-And not with things that have the same credibility, as the ones that i would probably use to persuade that he does indead exist...
DO IT!CAN YOU?
[/quote]
Uhh yeah, I can....You think that something that came out of nowhere could create you? If your god exists then who created him huh? Light is a photon. God didn't have 'THE CLAPPER'tm so how did he just make billions of phtons and a big gass ball appear out of nowhere.
mike1reynolds
Since the vast majority of scientists believe in God, and the majority of people who believe in God believe in science, why is there any conflict between science and religion? Only religious fanatics, and people who set up science as a religion, think that there is any contradiction. Most people accept both as being true without any contradiction.

Here is a mathemtical proof of God's existance:
a) Neural networks are basically matrix operations and according to the mathematical theory of Dynamical Systems and a more obscure branch of mathemtics called Associative Memory theory, a dynamical system that is a matrix operation will self-organize into an associative memory mechanism.

b) The four fundamental forces of the universe (gravity, EM, strong, weak) when acting on a group of particles forms a matrix operation. As such, it is a certainty that the entire universe has or will self-organize into a vast assiative memory mechanism, i.e. a cosmic consciousness or God.

The only real question that could be posed from a mathematical point of view is as to whether or not this has already happened yet.

===================

To religious folk that doubt evolution, why is it so hard to imagine that God Himself is not a cosmic genetic engineer? Once upon a time the Jews were the chosen race, and to this day they are a brilliant race, look at how heavily dominated by Jews the medical and legal professions are? Why would he chose a parcticular race, if not because of positive genetic traits like IQ?

God's objective with the evolutionary process is to create life forms that are better suited to being a receptical for a soul. Why is it so hard to imagine that God would make evolution a central part of His plan? Even die-hard anti-evolutions must admit that you are born with certain inherent traits, genetic traits like IQ and emotional intelligence. Doesn't it make sense that God would want to increase these traits, i.e. evolve people into become more intelligent and able to understand His Will?

I'd add that being able to hear the "still small voice" is in part a genetic trait. Some people are just BORN more sensitive, thoughtful and receptive to God's will. It also has to do with upbring of course, but just like IQ, there is only so much that a good ubringing to do for a person who is by nature self-centered.

God want's people to evolve spritually, no Christian would deny this, and yet many try to deny that God wants to create better vehicals for spiritual growth. Physical evolution goes hand-in-hand with spiritual evolution. If people could evolve better minds that would allow them to grow spiritually at a more rapid pace, don't you think that God would smile on this and do everything in His power to foster this?
Lennon
time zero.

Right, time zero means when we use quantum gravity to draw a timeline into the history of the universe. Using this science, the expansion of the universe has been calculated down to about fractions of a second after the expansion started. At the very start of the expansion (let's say time equal to zero, t=0, after which the universe began expanding and before which is unknown.
In mathematics, when you insert 0 into the equation, you get results of 0 or infinity, which are not real numbers and are illogical. You have nothing. Anyway, since spacetime is really space and time combined, at the universe when there was just a little time elapsed, there was a little space expansion. Now after lots of time we have lots of space. at the time t=0 there is no space, by rule.

I have studied metaphysics in my own time, and the more time you think about it, the more space you have to think about it. pun intended.

So to prove again how God must exist.
In the cause, effect theory, there must be an initial cause to start the universe, to shoot the gun at the start line and let the athletes run the track. "And god said, let there be light". And the universe expanded.
The matrix theory uses the same logic. A self-contained universe should not be able to generate random information into patterns wihtout an input.
Vrythramax
I don't believe there has to be a Science vs Religion issue, there can be a balance between the two.

There are many scientists who belive in God and just as many religios people who discount most of the science issues.

It all comes down to a matter of faith...wheather it's faith in science (evolution vs creationism), or faith in God (creationism vs evolution).

I think there can be a balance between the two opposing factions without us killing each other off just for our beliefs. Science has killed many people and so has religion....the numbers between the two may not exactly be even (and I am not going to go into who's ahead), but if we, meaning scientists and the religios people work together....maybe, just maybe the world could be a better place for us all.
zplitstonez
Hello blackstripes, if you don't believe in what the bible tells about, Then you don't believe that there is a GOD. If you don't believe that there is a GOD, then you are a foolish creature. If GOD was not the one who created us, then who? do you also believe in the theory of Evolution? that man evolve from apes? As of me, even if i'm not a genius, i won't believe and agree that i came from apes. I won't agree that my grandfather are apes. My grandfather and grandmother are beautiful and handsome one. they don't like apes. They're like me.

If you believe in evolution, then can you tell me what changed that will occur after you have just evolved from ape to human? what's next to human?
Soulfire
The argument remains a stalemate. Neither side can be proved right/wrong, keep on believing what you want to believe I suppose, religion makes the most sense to me.

A man is born only with his faith, and all he needs is a Bible.
zplitstonez
we all need the word of GOD. He is the only one that owns our lives.
Cezphus
Well as my science teacher has said many times,
Science has to have prove to prove it's point
While there is no evidence in Religion,
Unless you call us (humans) as evidence Confused
mike1reynolds
Soulfire wrote:
The argument remains a stalemate. Neither side can be proved right/wrong, keep on believing what you want to believe I suppose, religion makes the most sense to me.

A man is born only with his faith, and all he needs is a Bible.
The point is that there shouldn't be two side. Only ignorant people are on one side or the other. God is the impetus behind all evolution, both spiritual and physical.

The Bible warns against blind faith. Paul says, "Test all things!" 1 Thessalonians 5:21 Blind faith is an open invitation to be decieved by the Devil. The Devil can do might deeds too, so if you refuse to test your point of view and follow blindly you will not be able to tell God and the Devil apart. That is the problem with so many Christians, they smugly do the Devil's work because they are utterly convinced of their righteousness and have never questioned and tested their point of view.

Science on the other hand, while very good at testing their point of view, doesn't always know when to stop. Science rarely gives a false positive, that is to say, it rarely acknowledges a false point of view as true, but ignorant and arrogant scientists produce many false negatives, which is to say, claim that something is false when it is true. Good scientists know when something is outside of their field and don't try to apply science in an inappropriate way, which is why the great majority of scientists believe in God. Science has great B.S. detectors, but some people try to missuse this copacity of science to disprove things that are not rightly applicable to the methods they are trying to use.

Anyone who thinks that they should not test their faith and that science easily proffers false ideas as true is simply under the spell of ignorance and the Devil.
mike1reynolds
"But test and prove all things [until you can recognize] what is good; [to that] hold fast." 1 Thessalonians 5:21

Something that is untested is untrustworthy.
Lennon
Yes, test all things,

Logically most things should add up and make sense.
There are some things that are illogical and unsensible like the origin of the universe, singularity at t=0, miracles, paranormal activity etc. And don't attempt to prove any of these as hoaxes or useless coz even the greatest scientists like Stephen Hawking and psychologists and doctors are defeated by these mysteries.
Arnie
Depends what your elementary building blocks of testing are. What is your source when trying to test something?
Soulfire
There has not been one single archaeological find that opposes the Bible, yet there has been innumerable finds that remarkably coincide very well with the Bible.

If you want a few things, here are a few:

Roundness of the earth (Isaiah 40:22)
Almost infinite extent of the sidereal universe (Isaiah 55:9)
Law of conservation of mass and energy (II Peter 3:7)
Hydrologic cycle (Ecclesiastes 1:7)
Vast number of stars (Jeremiah 33:22)
Law of increasing entropy (Psalm 102:25-27)
Paramount importance of blood in life processes (Leviticus 17:11)
Atmospheric circulation (Ecclesiastes 1:6)
Gravitational field (Job 26:7)

And if you read the verses, you will notice that it isn't in a scientific mumbo-jumbo language, it's in a language common in the day it was written. Note that the meanings might be somewhat hard to find, but they are there.

Thanks to "ChristianAnswers.net" for the list.
4ndY
I belive only in science, but...

Scientists say sth like this: "We can explain almost everything after Big Bang - but what was before it we are leaving it to religion."

All our knowledge about world are not absolutely, 100% correct - only mathematic has somewhat solid base, all others sciences arn't 100% reliable and stable in theory and RL.

So what to do then? Please dont go in religion way (its all dogma), go in philosophical way (like ancient Greek philosophical) and discuss about all possible things with yourself and your friends - maybe you'll become aware of all things that surrounds you (Buddhisam has very similar way - so i respect it, im not Buddhist, but if i have to choose my religion i'll choose it).
Bondings
4ndY wrote:
All our knowledge about world are not absolutely, 100% correct - only mathematic has somewhat solid base, all others sciences arn't 100% reliable and stable in theory and RL.

Even mathematics rely on unprovable axioms.
4ndY
Bondings wrote:

Even mathematics rely on unprovable axioms.


Well, but math is really abstract science - and it is founded on her self, because problems are idealised in our minds - there is no real triangle, no real line, ... in nature. So there is no doubt in our senses + mind is logical = no errors (well almost Razz ).
ralphbefree
Is there really a difference between the two: science and religion? Haven't we trancended past the idea of only black and white? I mean that is so 1980's Rolling Eyes


This world ... This universe is a manifestation of a higher order where everything seems to be in perfect relation to each other. I mean the sun comes up every day... and the freshness of spring arrives each year right on schedule. There is a distinct pattern that is repeated throughout everything.
That pattern is that of creation -> growth -> decay. This cause and effect "chain-of-events" is the process that science refers to as evolution.
When we refer to the "chain-of-events" that correspond to our own spiritual (creation ->)"growth"(-> decay) we are refering to religion.

Religion helps us to realize the potential that our spirits are capable of. Science helps us to realize the potential that out world is capable of.

Both Religion and Science helps us to realize the potential that our universe is capable of.

and besides:
Who would belittle the power of GOD by denouncing the ability to create evolution? Don't you, if you want to create something, implement a system, a protocol? A web app cannot be created just by me saying so. No, i need a protocol a system like C++, or Flash, or PHP and then through a proccess of evolution I finally develop the web app that I originally thought of (created).

Truly All Is The Same Wink
hobbes
Alight, all biologists agree that life cannot arise from nonlife. Something has reproduce to make more life. But when explaining how life started on Earth, they said that a whole bunch of chemicals mixed together and make it possible for life to arise. Earth did not start out with oxygen on it, plants turned the other chemicals into oxygen =). So basically, they said that life has to come from other life, but at the beggining of the Earth, life came from nothing.

So I don't know how life on Earth started. I can't explain a lot of things. But at least I am smart enough to know that there is a reason, not just that some "god" made it because thats what he does.

Also some one said before god said "im going to create a planet called Earth" Earth is the name man gave to the planet. If there was a God, he probably called it something different.
nopaniers
I am a physicist and also a Christian. I don't believe that science and religion are in conflict at all. They are just two views of the same thing. Science is not even close to answering the important questions of life, like: Is there a God? Religion is not close to answering questions like: Why does a BEC behave in the way it does? I am happy in the knowledge that I will never know either perfectly, although I like to learn about both.

IMHO People should approach both science and religion should be approached with an open mind, wanting to make an informed choice. What we learn in science helps in debunking the far out religion, and what we learn from religion helps us know the boundaries of science.

There is no conflict.
Simulator
Religion, I think, is mans greatest enemy and our greatest ally, it brings people together, and also causes wars. But I think we can do without it, Religion has been mans excuse of making emends of what they balledup, and for an easy out for explaining what they couldn’t explain. I am a man of science, but I also respect the minds power over the body, and this is religion, the minds power over the body, any feeling you get of a god(s) looking over you is only your mind stimulating your nerves. I’m no expert, and I have not read all the posts in this thread, but there is a lot of false claims in it. Most people don’t know, but the first 5 books of the Bible were rewritten to fit the claims of the “Enlightened Age.” And although there are evidence of a flood around the time of the Great Flood with Noah Ark, but somehow the Egyptians remained untouched…
heady233
I don't believe in god. I think it's all just a big fake.
bgillingham
Historically, science always wins. Religion has to accept facts as they are proven.

It is sad to think that if there was no religion, a type of anarchy could break out that would make sure that only the strong survive (survival of the fittest).

Modest Mouse rocks true with "It takes a long time, but God dies too" in "I Came as a Rat".
make_life_better
mike4652 wrote:
Quote:
darwins theory

This says it all THEORY! A theory is something not proven yet!
Charles him self said that evolution was a theory.


Do you know anything about what a proof is?

mike4652 wrote:
And there is no physical prof. All living creatures re-produce after thier kind. nothing is half of one kind and half of another.


You are. And so am I. You are a product of both your parents' genes, just like I am a product of mine. And looking further, what about inter-species breeding such as mules (horse/donkey cross) and similar. And look up species rings, like gulls. Don't throw in random wrong statements and expectto be taken seriously.

mike4652 wrote:
Nothing was created by chance!


Why do you say that? Lots of beautiful things are a result of pure chance

mike4652 wrote:
All living things on earth serve a purpose. Even salt water helps keep the earth warm. that in it self proves design. Wink


Excuse me? It's a simple fact that water has a large heat capacity (the reasons are complex, but pretty much follow from the structure of water). What has that got to do with design?
make_life_better
zplitstonez wrote:
Hello blackstripes, if you don't believe in what the bible tells about, Then you don't believe that there is a GOD. If you don't believe that there is a GOD, then you are a foolish creature.


I find that offensive. I do not believe in god, and many people believe that I am not foolish.

zplitstonez wrote:
If GOD was not the one who created us, then who?


My parents created me. I guess your parents created you.

zplitstonez wrote:
do you also believe in the theory of Evolution? that man evolve from apes?


Why do so many people make this stupid mistake? NO-ONE claims that we evolved from apes. All that is claimed is that both we and the apes have a common ancestor. The apes have evolved just as much as we have.

zplitstonez wrote:
As of me, even if i'm not a genius, i won't believe and agree that i came from apes. I won't agree that my grandfather are apes. My grandfather and grandmother are beautiful and handsome one. they don't like apes. They're like me.


Are you really so dumb as to believe that is what evolution is trying to say? Go back thousands of generations and you might find that people were different and maybe more ape-like. But the difference over two or three generations would be miniscule.

zplitstonez wrote:
If you believe in evolution, then can you tell me what changed that will occur after you have just evolved from ape to human? what's next to human?


Each generation would be very like its precedecessor.
make_life_better
illini319 wrote:
hades9366 wrote:
Science at least is rigorous in that it is always open to the possibility that it is wrong.


In an ideal world, this would be true... Religion and science are based on different belief structures. And as such, neither likes it when their structure is questioned.


On the contrary, science is all about questioning these belief structures.

illini319 wrote:
The raging debate over intelligent design is a perfect example of how science can also be blinded. Without getting into intelligent design, it is basically just a theory that attempts to blend some scientific facts within a theological framework. Sort of, replacing the Heisenberg principle of uncertainty with the 'god principle.'


Have you any idea what the Heisenberg uncertainty principle is about? It just says that you can't know where something is and where it is going at the same time with complete accuracy. With extensions to other measurements that follow from that.

illini319 wrote:
The complexities of life are still not fully explained by science; that chance alone cannot explain life.


It can explain it, but can't prove it. Therefore it just stays an unproved hypothesis. It may never be proved, but that doesn't mean its wrong.

illini319 wrote:
The vast majority of scientists would then contend that these complexities will ultimately be discerned and the outcome will not include an intelligent designer. In science, we call this bias. AND bias, in the idealized sense, should NEVER be part of the scientific pursuit as it causes the investigator to expect evidence that would support the initial hypothesis and potentially ignore (miss, rationalize, exclude....) other evidence that could support different explanations.


No. Most scientists claim that there is no evidence to support any intelligent designer, and that current understanding of normal physical processes suggests these are sufficient to create the world we see around us. They are not saying that there is no intelligent designer, just that they see no need to add the extra complexity of one. The bias I see is entirely on the ID side, trying to mangle the evidence to support some fantasy.

illini319 wrote:
The simple fact is that we do not understand life's complexity. If you decide to pursue this noble goal by science then go for it. It's a long, potentially ruinous, path that theoretically will yield the final answer. But for everyone's sake, do NOT delude yourself in thinking that you know parts of the grand answer (i.e. that god cannot be in the equation), because that would be greatest assumption of all.


This cuts both ways. Do NOT delude yourself in thinking that you know parts of the grand answer (i.e. that god MUST be in the equation), because that would be greatest assumption of all.
make_life_better
ocalhoun wrote:
"It is written, thou shalt not test the Lord thy God"
Sound familiar?
Probably not, I don't guess anybody reads the book I'm quoting.


Why not? What's he got to worry about? Scared that you might find a test result that goes the wrong way?
sentinela
well, a quite good topic!!!!

there are some strange things about people who follow god as creator of the universe....

acordind to them God created the earth in a few days, 10,000 years back from now.....

what about fossils.....


???????
AzTeK
pretty ironic that religion is religions enemie and then we have all these hosptials funded by religions, in my opinion religious people only accept the scientific things that help them because how can you say that science is completely wrong and then you take yourself and family to the hospital for doctor visits and curing diseases. Im not sure but I beleive thats called beign a hypocrit, eather all science is wrong or it's right. Also, I don't think there is such a thing as speration of government and religion clearly the government uses religion to control it's people, hah they even have all these christians supporting the Iraq war, when one of the most serious sins in the bible is killing... This is all pretty amuzing.
startsomething
All evolutionist ever try to do is give hundreds of examples of microevolution and expects you to make the giant leap to macroevolution which there is no evidence for. Past microevolution there is no evidence for evolution. If you think there is, e-mail me at MrBeezus@aol.com and I will enlighten you or you might change my mind if you have found evidence that no one else has tried to present and then has been shot down.
make_life_better
What would you define or accept as evidence of "macro evolution"? The whole point of this theory is that most evolution is the result of tiny random steps over millions of generations with some very slight pressure through natural selection. Yes we all know that there appear to be gaps in the history of virtually every species - this is what we would expect and predict given the probability of any single individual being fossilised well enough to be recogisable. We may have found a group (or even one individual) of each species fossilised every hundred thousand years or even a million years. I would like to see evidence of a clear history of evolution for species, with a nice neat sequence of similar fossils showing some "macro" evolution over time, but it is so unlikely in reality that most scientists would actually be very sceptical about it without really strong evidence about how and where these fossils were dug up.

As it is, there is enough hard evidence to support the evolutionary development of virtually every feature found in any animal - just not all in one species.

Most evolutionists accept that there probably never will be found any sequence of fossils showing "macro evolution" in a way that would convince any committed creationist.

BTW: if startsomething has some revelation why can't we all be enlightened here?
sterngate
There is NO PROVE so what ever, saying god creat the earth. Well i believe that there are creation. But how can i make this a true statement and prove that my believe is true? EAch person will feel the sense from within and their opinions will alter from day to day.
What is science? is it because what i learn at school? evolution = evolves to an advance and adaptable stage of environenment? well i'll give DARWIN his credit proving his theory, but he is a religious man! why? ask him! If one person compare from one religious to another religious, or religion to evolution? The meaning question is "Is life is good"? well be thank you.

"I'll do not need to prove anything, nor say thing to make you understand, but what i do every day ought to make the factor of who we are and why are we here?
Lennon
There is no proof to say that intelligent design is not possible.

Statistically there is a probabillity of the universe forming life on a planet, but there is the law of information systems that says that any self-contained system cannot self-design its own programs, and there is the philosophical arguement of first cause, chicken or the egg, which St. Thomas Aquinas describes as a good proof that God must be the first mover.

I agree with illini319 that the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle is a good comparison to the intelligent Design, same perspective.

But yes, we will never know the truth until the day we die. If there is a God, then there's still a chance at the last judgement that god will give you a second chance to accept him. If there is no God and you die, you have nothing to worry about, you're finished. But my advice is to believe and if there is no God then you're not to blame, and if there is then you've done God proud. If you don't believe you are to blame.

Fantasies and myths can easily be disproven, but yet a God cannot be excluded by scientific proof as intelligent designer.
make_life_better
Lennon wrote:
Fantasies and myths can easily be disproven, but yet a God cannot be excluded by scientific proof as intelligent designer.


I hereby declare that I believe that the world and all life therein were created 23000 years ago by a sentient teapot that is still orbiting the sun with us somewhere in the solar system. It keeps watch over all us us etc.

Prove me wrong? Anybody?
Lennon
Ok, microbiological fossils have been carbon dated to about 3 billion years ago. The oldest earth rock samples have been carbon dated at 4 billion years old. The background radiation in the universe and the expansion rates of galaxies suggest the origin of the universe about 13.5 trillion years ago.
Sedimentation patterns have been found in many locations around the globe. In the grand canyon layers have been formed over millions of years. The ice cap in Greenland has built up over millions of years and has records of atmosphere back hundreds of thousands of years.

Need I continue?
make_life_better
With regard to the sacred Teapot (pbuh), of course all this claimed evidence of the ancient nature of rocks and fossils is misleading, because nobody has ever made rock by putting sand and mud into a box and just leaving it, and nobody has ever seen an animal or plant ever turn into a fossil before their eyes. My mother wasn't a monkey either. I have seen written evidence from the great Tea flood when all the heathen biscuits were made soggy. This is written down on ancient teabags which prove all this to be true. On the seventh day, the great Teapot said "I have had enough of this, lets all have a nice cuppa"....etc Very Happy

But now I am in danger of mocking people and their beliefs, and that is wrong, and not what I am trying to do - please take the above as a gentle jest and not a serious attempt to annoy anybody.

Anyway, my point was really just trying to illustrate that it is actually very hard to actually prove any fantasy wrong, even if it is patently gibberish to everyone - that is not the same as proof. If you don't believe that, then try to prove my stated position above wrong and I'll find good counter arguments to back my stated position, and we could carry this on for many days and pages - but I think we can all agree that would be a waste of time and energy for us all, even though bits of it might be fun. Lets go and do something useful in the real world instead.

It is correspondingly much harder still when there are many people who take different but strongly held beliefs and the evidence is not absolutely clear cut and undisputed. Very often it takes a lot of care and insight to follow through a complex set of evidence and reasoning to understand why some apparently reasonable statement is either unsupported by the claimed evidence, or that other explanations work just as well or better, or that the claim is just plain falacious or inconsistent. We don't all use the same reasoning processes either, or give the same weight to different evidence, and sometimes we each draw different conclusions from the same evidence. Note that I am NOT claiming that any religious belief is wrong - just to explain why it is quite reasonable for me to hold a different set of views and to not feel the same way about all the claimed evidence as other people. I feel the weight of evidence is very heavily in favour of my world view/philosophy/outlook/beliefs or whatever anybody wants to call them - I'm a sort of moral logical atheist come humanist, but people have probably guessed that before now from my posting here and elsewhere.

PS: Respect to Lennon - he (?) is one of the few on this forum who appear to think deeply and post in a level-headed way. I can't see inside your thought process, but the way you write gives me a strong feeling of careful thought having gone into your posts. Wish there were more like you here. Don't like to flatter, but some things need to be said sometimes.
nopaniers
make_life_better wrote:
I hereby declare that I believe that the world and all life therein were created 23000 years ago by a sentient teapot that is still orbiting the sun with us somewhere in the solar system. It keeps watch over all us us etc.

Prove me wrong? Anybody?


It's not about proving, it's about examining what evidence there is and making up your mind. If you really think there is evidence of a teapot, I won't stop you. If you really do, I would like to hear that evidence.

Lennon wrote:
but there is the law of information systems that says that any self-contained system cannot self-design its own programs,


I'm not sure exactly which law you are referring to. Chaotic systems are examples where order can emerge from apparent disorder. A person is a self contained system who given enough time and and resouces could design themselves... maybe I'm missing something.

If you mean the second law of thermodynamics, then it does not apply to open thermodynamic systems (which it the earth is, with sunlight streaming in), and if you make the system big enough to include the sun (or even the rest of the universe) then the tiny decrease in entropy on earth is dwarfed by the massive increase in entropy of the rest of the universe.

I do believe in God, but I don't think entropy/thermodynamics is a very good argument for him. It makes a lot of interesting questions for me like "Which way is time going?" and "If entropy suddenly ran the other way, would we remember the future?"... but that's getting off the topic.
NewGuyinTown
We seek God for answers.
We seek Science for answers.

We seek God to cure us.
We seek a Doctor to cure us.

God knows everything.
Science knows everything.

God is powerful.
Science is powerful.

God is Science.

I always believe religion is there to unite a country. Less deviance in behaviors and wrongful acts. It binds everyone together, making them less different. Something to live for and live by. We are a family.

Without religion, we are more free to be ourselves. The gap from one end to the opposite one is very large. I don't know you, I don't care about you.
Arnie
make_life_better wrote:
BTW: if startsomething has some revelation why can't we all be enlightened here?
Simply because people don't want to.
DarthSilus
Science and Religion are more alike than you may beleive.

Science is carried out by humans, and humans have philosophical outlooks on life. Example: Evolution and the Big Bang are not new ideas.
Evolution comes from the Hindu and Buddhist ideas of progressing towards enlightenment. (life getting better by overcoming problems)
The Big Bang is an ancient Chinese philosohpy of "something from nothing" with a few "scientific" statements thrown in.

Religion also depends upon science and logic, for it needs to go against them to acheive its miracle myths, yet still be applicable to real people. Religion is as faulty as science is too, because it is created by biased indivduals who, like scientists, claim to have no agenda (which is always a lie, because part of being human is having an agenda.)

Neither religion or science are good--both are bothersome.

Philosophy is the Middle Path, the balance and success of the two. The mystery of life and the Universe cannot be tackled in just one, narrow dogmatic approach.
bladesage
Raijenki wrote:
I don't believe in God, and i don't believe in science.
Scienc Motive to don't believe: The planets before the big bang can stay in that minusculous place for 1 seg, then, how the where created?
Religious: I believe that god can't down in the world and say: "I will create a planet called earth".


If you don't believe in anything, what motivates you to live?

(I'm for both, because they are not meant to be opposed to each other)
schumway
the planets were likely created by atoms pulling together through gravity and magnetism
anne-
to me religion and science meet....science nowadays can explain things that happen in different religions, like miracles for example. So, things in religion that we cant understand...who knows maybe someday we will be able to explain them....and that doesnt prove that religion is wtong, but that it was right....all this in my opinion:)Smile
bladesage
I really love science as a whole, but I'm also a strong catholic. Religion is quite simply not supposed to be explained by science. That's what we religious folk call faith, to still believe in something despite the odds. I don't descriminate because of religious belief, or lack thereof. I just don't. But, when people try to say that my religion is wrong, or even rediculous, I tend to get defensive.

I really do love science, but religion is never supposed to be opposed to science. It isn't that they shouldn't be tied together, because they are both part of everyday life (for many). That's precisely why they shouldn't be opposed. "Science vs Religion," while a very fiery topic, is really not supposed to exist at all. I've got nothing against it, because it gives me another good place to argue this stuff, but the ideas behind it, while clearly very common thoughts, are...well, I want to say wrong, but they aren't, really.

Basically, and I will argue this 'til the day I die, science and religion are meant to co-exist, and are vitually equally important on some levels. Oh well, that's the way life is, I'll get over it.
Panthrowzay
There are many casuses were the bible sopports science; water cycle, creation order, earth not held, round earth, just to name a few. The contridiction of Science vs the bible is a illisuion, they are really agreeing with each other, the bible is just stright up with the point.
Gieter
Another pointless discussion (in my opinion at least.) Religion and science are something separate, you can't oppose religion to science or science to religion. Religion is something personal, while science is a more general experience. Einstein, by example, was religious:
Quote:

Quantum mechanics is certainly imposing. But an inner voice tells me that it is not yet the real thing. The theory says a lot, but does not really bring us any closer to the secret of the Old One. I, at any rate, am convinced that He does not throw dice.


There are scientists who are religious. So I don't think "Science vs. Religion" is a good statement. To believe or not to believe, that's the question.
Whong
I'd like to say that scientists say that the universe was created of an explosion of a supernova! But hey, did you ever see something good coming out of an explosion? I don't think so! Shocked Question Exclamation
When a bomb explodes, fire, ashes, smoke and destruction is everywhere!

Isn't it way more logical that God created this beautiful planet of ours and the whole univers! Yes! God in his wisdom formed the earth! Laughing
Gieter
Whong wrote:
I'd like to say that scientists say that the universe was created of an explosion of a supernova! But hey, did you ever see something good coming out of an explosion? I don't think so! Shocked Question Exclamation
When a bomb explodes, fire, ashes, smoke and destruction is everywhere!

Isn't it way more logical that God created this beautiful planet of ours and the whole univers! Yes! God in his wisdom formed the earth! Laughing


You really should start to pay attention in school. Wink No, seriously, find a good book/website about it and read about how the universe came into existence, and how the planets and stars came to exists. Basically, it all has to do with 'gravity.' Enjoy Wink
Whong
Gieter wrote
Quote:
Basically, it all has to do with 'gravity.' Enjoy Wink


There is no gravity in space, am I right! Wink

What in mens eyes is wisdom is in God's eyes foolishness!!!! Exclamation Laughing

Read the Bible, start from the gospel of John Laughing
Bondings
Whong wrote:
There is no gravity in space, am I right! Wink

Oh gosh, I'm fainting ...

Gospel of John, here I come. Rolling Eyes
noman_namon
There is no inherent problem between science and religion. The problem come about when people subscribe to religious dogma adamantly without allowing for the new discovery in science. We all know how and why Corpenicus died. I think religions should not based their core value on a cosmology but on morality. Likewise, the rational and the mystical are not mutually exclusive. The mystical is just what is beyond the understanding of our rational mind based on out current state of knowledge.

Here's what Einstein said: "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

The crucial point is to not fall into the trap of dogmatism, to the point that one would stick fast to a literal interpretation of the scriptures and oppose anything deviate from that.

The Dalai Lama is an exemplary open-minded religious leader. He has no qualm against scientific discoveries and believe that Buddhism can adjust its cosmology according to advances in sciences.
Gieter
Whong wrote:
Gieter wrote
Quote:
Basically, it all has to do with 'gravity.' Enjoy Wink


There is no gravity in space, am I right! Wink

What in mens eyes is wisdom is in God's eyes foolishness!!!! Exclamation Laughing

Read the Bible, start from the gospel of John Laughing


Again: read some books or pay attention in school. Wink There IS gravity in space. It's not because you're not floating there's no such thing like gravity in space. The Earth keeps orbiting around the sun because of gravity. Satelittes keep orbiting around the Earth because of gravity.
bladesage
I don't know how this topic got about gravity in space, but gravity is actually what keeps the planets from splitting into the billions of rock particles that they're made of. Now, in deep space, as in far away from the nearest planets, there is virtually no gravity. Gravity is how we base our ideas of weight, as weight is a means of measuring how much gravity affects a given object. So, in theory, if there is absolutely no weight for said object in certain areas of the universe, then either there is gravity that is having no effect on the object (which usually means the gravity is very weak, as I know of nothing that isn't affected by gravity in its full force), or there is no gravity at all. Since the vast depths of outer space have been known quite frequently to relinquish any fractions of an object's normal weight on Earth, then that should mean that there is no gravity in said areas.

If any of that made since to you, then you can see where I'm coming from. If weight is a measure of gravity's effect on something, and something has no weight, then it should indicate that there is no gravity nearby the object.
nopaniers
bladesage wrote:
I don't know how this topic got about gravity in space, but gravity is actually what keeps the planets from splitting into the billions of rock particles that they're made of.


Not to mention it keeps the planets and comets orbitting the sun, and binds the stars into galaxies. There is gravity in space... There would only be no gravity if there was no mass, if there was no mass we wouldn't be there to observe it...
bladesage
Yeah, if you think about what the universe would be like if we didn't exist long enough, since it's a paradox 'cause we wouldn't be able to know what it'd be like, you can get a massive headache Exclamation.
Gieter
bladesage wrote:
Raijenki wrote:
I don't believe in God, and i don't believe in science.
Scienc Motive to don't believe: The planets before the big bang can stay in that minusculous place for 1 seg, then, how the where created?
Religious: I believe that god can't down in the world and say: "I will create a planet called earth".


If you don't believe in anything, what motivates you to live?

(I'm for both, because they are not meant to be opposed to each other)


He doesn't says he doesn't believe in anything, he just doesn't believe in God nor science. He also can believe in love, in the Human, in himself,... Smile
talonsmallville
Hi everyone,

Well, this is a really polemic matter. I´m religious person, them of course, I believe that God existense. I just can´t imagine there is no "Super" force beyond us, Divine force. I believe on miracle, and it´s not possible if there isn´t Some One that made them.
When we are alone, That Force made us strong when we most need it.
So I believe in God and I guess He made us, not other way.
anwartheravian
I m a muslim and i know that not a single point of my religion contradicts with the developed science (theories are not included), nevertheless there are some points on what my religion predicts some thing and the science has not yet discovered that thing.Well this is my belief if you ppl found any contradiction please let me know.
With regards.
Hogwarts
Im not really sure on this. If there is a god, from where did he come? Why is the universe NOT nothing? It's impossible to think of nothing... If you try to you're thinking of thinking of nothing, so you're not thinking of nothing. Why did the meteor hit Earth? Why does Earth even exist? Why does ANYTHING exist?
494701557
i think science and religion are practically the same thing. religion gives people faith back then and an explaination for the phenomenas that they see around them. faith as in, god will protect me from evil spirits, from sickness and help me live a good life. god will heal me with his powers and when i die i will go to heaven a place of eternal peace. science is like an upgraded version of religion. it explains to us now all the things we see around us, and many times gives us faith in our lives. faith as in medicine will protect me from diseases, body aches and sicknesses and help me live a good life. science will heal me when i am sick and when i die, science will explain to me what will happen to me.

of course there are many things in the bible that can't be explained by science but then again how much do you think is real in a book where practically 90% of the miracles are now proven by science?

is science a way to prove religion? will science eventually prove that there is a god? scientists every day prove things that we used to think was never possible. who is to say that science one day will prove that there is actually a god. and maybe even find some way to talk to god via cell or email? could science be god's way of making us understand the world he has created for us? to make us actually work for making contact with him with one proof at a time?

i dunno, i just think so many people keeps seeing science as science and religion as religion and not even thinking of a possibility that they may be interlinked.
m_furquan36
speaking with repect to my religeon (islam) i kinda think its both...

i mean religeon tells us that Adam and Eve were the first humans created by our lord, and science also tells of the first human lifeforms on earth being from the ape family, and thus i dont know why, or whether ne one has debated on it before, but i think Adam and Eve coulod be from the ape family, justa guess though! Rolling Eyes
softnow
Man has always needed some way to explain how things happen!
Be it how the sun always rises and sets, to how the tides change to why it rains at certain time and not at others.

Whether you are educated or not everyone has a need to believe in something. The natives created god (god of wind, god of harvest, sun god etc) to explain what they saw, and to feel something or someone was looking after them.

Educated people often don't want to believe that there might be someone or something bigger better stronger or smarter then them with a say in there lives.

It doesn't matter what you believe in creation or evolution or both(as a lot of scientist do) as long as you live a good and purposeful life
schumway
not sure I could take a ride on the bus of science and religion being practically the same thing. Everyone is allowed their views and I find that science is typically repeatable observable science.

where as religion, at least those wrapped around the bible, tend to be stories of some folks which happened to have been written down.

There are many religions in the world. One would think that if it was only one God then we should all have the same beliefs and understandings and certainly not killing each other because our interpretation is better/different than someone else's.

It is a book... a very important book to some folks based on scribes notes found in the desert and etc. Like much of history and current times... there are always multiple sides to all events. It will be interesting to see the answer sheet to this debate as all religions believe they are right, many are similar and many are quite different.

Maybe the God up there is forgiving enough that they want to see how we manage our growth and development of our children and how we treat people and nature. Maybe it does not matter what we believe just as long as we believe the the finer details are symantics to a better end?

certainly not science though. gravity here in Canada works the same in Arab nations and the same in the Soviets and the Chinese and etc. It tends to cross borders only being impeded by those concerned it threatens their believes or desires. After all... we all know that the universe needs to orbit Earth Wink
schumway
I believe there is a force or something out there but I am not sure he/she/it created everything there is and for a purpose.

As for gravity... there is also magnetism and other forces in space that have impacts on objects...

I tend to agree that in the old days people did not have the time to spend thinking about religion and science... they were kinda busy finding food and fighting off other towns and etc. As things started to turn to farming vs hunting gathering people had more time and it lead to different activities including science to find out the why behind the faith... like when your parents tell you to do something or not do something... you are told not to ask WHY just DO IT (or not as the case may be)! But there is a reason behind it and it usually isnt just a whim. I am sure there is a science of all of why we are here and why this planet vs others and yes there is other life out there but the requirements may not match for so many light years away we will never find it... and what kind of life is it... etc.

I like the comment that religion is a belief. I can understand that but then I would counter that with science is real life and relion is just what I believe. If you want to know why things happen go experiment... dont just say 'because he made it so'... whatever that means... there is a real reason go find it. But if someone believes that trees should be saved because they add oxygen to the atmosphere and we should be thankful... without turning into a tree hugger (whatever that means) then great.

Also re: comment some scientists are religious. I am sure most are. I also know that many scientists had to "balance" their findings with what the church thought was the right answer for fear of death. And that much of early science and perhaps even today with cloning or whatever... maybe we are again holding back progress and science and discoveries (ie burn victem treatments?) because of a "select group" of people with certain religious beliefs. Does that mean that people who believe (lets say cloning for argument sake) is a good thing... well they should be permitted to do cloning stuff... and those who do not believe in cloning... well they can go find a cure for cancer vs sucking up the billions in funding without an answer yet.

then to take it a next step.. there is suppose to be separation of church and state yet who are the groups who lobby vs cloning and vs abortion vs having 6-8 wives (no I am not a morman... and no I would not want more than 1... they are hard on the head at the best of times ;> and yes I love her to death!!!!). It is typically christians and typically quoting the bible... to the supreme court?????

this should be interesting. Not stirring the pot... it is what I believe... perhaps my religion Wink
discountcontacts
Science is about is the what... it is a descriptive body of knowledge and practice. Religion is about the why... it is explanatory and prescriptive. The two are different and are not necessarily in conflict with each other. I have a good friend who is studying advanced science at Sydney University and at the same time is one of the most dedicated Christians.
schnitzi
494701557 wrote:
of course there are many things in the bible that can't be explained by science but then again how much do you think is real in a book where practically 90% of the miracles are now proven by science?



I'm not sure which things you are calling miracles, or what your standard of proof is. Can you name one of the miracles you are talking about that has been proved by science?
Sparmactro
Science is best than religion for the obvios reason that: both are human knowelge, and i prefer the one that is logic for the one than im juist beliving what "someone" said. because I gamble you that nobody had seen god! They only belive in him because of their education when they where child, thats why there are a lot of religions, and none is trutgh!
Vlien
I'm at the library now, don't have the time to go through all of the posts, but I'd really like to add my vision to the topic...
I recently had this 'minor' discussion (~arguement :p) with my bf about the meaning of life, or rather: the source of everything.
I asked him to look at earth/space/... from a distance, like he was able to see everything, to visualise this, I told him to put all this into an "aquarium". Then I asked: "Why, WHY, is this aquarium there?" and he started to explain everything scientifically. The thing is, I didn't ask for the HOW, I asked for the WHY, which, of course, doesn't have an answer. I wanted to show him the mystery of all this, because he claims that in a "couple of years", everything will be explained by science.
Then in the morning, a much better question popped into my head, that showed my problem much more clearly: "Who/What created time and space?" or "What's the meaning of the existance of time and space?" In our human minds, the beginning of time just can't exist, can it? There has always got to be a preceding point.

Hm, that's more or less my point, ahum, not really structured, I admit...
sonna3 el hayet
philosophy :
what is it. It is a kind of men Thoughts.

for sure as GOD says : if it is not GOD who created all this
who is the creator?

SCIENCE :
What is the science? it is not more that models that we try to find to understand what happens in the nature or world.
Could the science put new behavior of any studied phenomene

I think that we believe in science and all we did with science is when we understand how it works we use this knowledge and make things

but god created every thing : earth, men, animals, trees, water, sky, sun, stars, ...

With science, all what we did, is that we understood how it works, that's all
did we change their behavior?

GOD says you cannot even create a little fly

with all this god claimed that he is the creator by sending prophetes

and GOD says all this is not a GAME
Tyler
As a faithful, God praising Jew, I, of course, believe that the Lord God Almighty created the heaven and the Earth and everything and everyone here. I also believe he spread his ideas by the Prophets. I do not believe that we are the remnants of inploded stars, nor do I believe in scientology or absolutely nothing after death.

Science can solve some things, but God gave us science to use. It is our duty to respect and appreciate everything God has done for us and to praise, honor, and worship him.

Over science, I choose the Lord Almighty God.

Praises be to you Whong and others who defend the fact that God created the universe.

Those of you who don't believe in a God, I pray that God helps you realize the error of your ways. For it to be bad to say "Happy Hanukkah" or "Merry Christmas" in public is sad, because God create all of us to love and honor Him and each other.

May God show you all His unimaginable love!
Lennon
Tyler wrote:


Those of you who don't believe in a God, I pray that God helps you realize the error of your ways. For it to be bad to say "Happy Hanukkah" or "Merry Christmas" in public is sad, because God create all of us to love and honor Him and each other.


I agree totally. Everyone has a right to respect and dignity, including religious beliefs. But to impose your belief of religion or atheism or intolerance of either is wrong. You cannot impose beliefs, just respect others beliefs.

This goes against christian teaching that is intolerant to evil ways of humanity, including evils of paganism and ignorance of the faith. Muslim faith is much more intolerant to other beliefs. As for jews, maybe Tyler can tell us more, I just feel like Judaism has been so oppressed it is only now finding security amongst the other faiths.

For yes, intolerance is a form of ignorance, bullying, intimidation and a barrier to humanity, believe me or not.

If someone does something wrong it may take a little disciplinary action like punishement, intolerance etc to force people to stop doing wrong.
In that light... no religion can rightfully claim another religion to be wrong.

Pope Benedict's idealism and conservatism almost led him to claim Islam as a distorted belief of the Christian God in the same speech that the poorly chosen quote arose. In that speech Pope Benedict XVI claimed that all religions contain essence of God, including Islam, but not as whole as the Catholic church. In that light, he claimed all religion as Good where they worship the same God, but that the faith is not attainable to the level as in the Catholic Church.

Instead I would like to see compromise. The religions should unbind their traditions that they hold as sacred, and start questioning their basis and validity to either reject or reinforce their traditions.

And in that light I am intolerant to this attitude of a self-righteousness that overrides compromise and questioning for the greater good.
Soulfire
Science shouldn't be "versing" or "fighting" with religion at all. They are two seperate institutions with two seperate goals. They cannot disprove or prove each other, because even "facts" as we know it are far from facts.
Tyler
Well,

I had to study many of the sciences in college. I came acquainted with many of them, but I never let them interfere with my religious beliefs, nor did I let religion interefere with science. They are separate, as Soulfire pointed out, and should stay that way.

Combing the two is like combing oil and water, it just doesn't work out.

My second big job was as a biochemist, so I had to really delve into physical science. But, my religion is still with me.

As far as Judaism goes, nothing should be put above your beliefs.

The Jewish beliefs have been put to the test over the last 3 centuries. The main of course, being the Holocaust. I don't really want to go into the subject, as it took many of my relatives.
Bikerman
Tyler wrote:
Well,

I had to study many of the sciences in college. I came acquainted with many of them, but I never let them interfere with my religious beliefs, nor did I let religion interefere with science. They are separate, as Soulfire pointed out, and should stay that way.

Combing the two is like combing oil and water, it just doesn't work out.

But presumably you are not a creationist ? Presumably you accept evolution as a valid theory ?Presumably you accept that the earth is billions, not thousands, of years old ?
Not long ago those were all fundamental issues of doctrine for christians.
In such cases there is a clear conflict between religion and science and this has been the case for many centuries.

Chris
Tyler
Bikerman wrote:
Tyler wrote:
Well,

I had to study many of the sciences in college. I came acquainted with many of them, but I never let them interfere with my religious beliefs, nor did I let religion interefere with science. They are separate, as Soulfire pointed out, and should stay that way.

Combing the two is like combing oil and water, it just doesn't work out.

But presumably you are not a creationist ? Presumably you accept evolution as a valid theory ?Presumably you accept that the earth is billions, not thousands, of years old ?
Not long ago those were all fundamental issues of doctrine for christians.
In such cases there is a clear conflict between religion and science and this has been the case for many centuries.

Chris


I do believe in the Creation, I don't accept evolution, I don't believe in billions of years.

I am an ardent Jew and stay firm to my beliefs.
the_mariska
Bikerman wrote:

But presumably you are not a creationist ? Presumably you accept evolution as a valid theory ?Presumably you accept that the earth is billions, not thousands, of years old ?
Not long ago those were all fundamental issues of doctrine for christians.
In such cases there is a clear conflict between religion and science and this has been the case for many centuries.

Chris
Surprise: this couldn't be a doctrine, as Christian doctrines deal only about the matters of God and spiritual part of reality. The Christian doctrine says that God created the Universe, but it doesn't say anything about how it has been done. Just simply because, this is the matter of science, not religion.

And the conflict existed only because people were unable to catch the difference between competences of religion and science [unfortunately there are still some that can't realise that Confused ]. Well, it existed only in their minds. Cool
Tyler
I applaud you. I have been researching many other religions including Christianity, Buddhism, Skikhism, Hinduism, etc.

In Christianty and Judaism, the book of Genesis states that God created everything from nothing and nothing else about creation.
sonalobramo
The topic of GOD to the average Joe is like calculus to a dog.
We can´t presume to understand GOD just like a dog will never understand why his master strikes at him when he pees in the carpet. People will deny the existence of something when they can´t come to understand it. That´s why faith is important.
However, I think science tends to take us closer to GOD. If you don´t believe in something until you see it with your own eyes than think of this.
Quatum physics tell us that matter is made up of atoms which are made of space.. and more space.. and tiny little particles spinning around a nucleus by their own attracting forces and which are made up tinier particles and more space. So basically matter is just space and attracting forces. You can´t see the forces or the space, but you can certainly see the matter.
Basically, what you see is what you can´t see and what you can´t see is what you see.
So if you´re looking at a tree it´s likely that you´re starring GOD in the face.
Indi
Tyler wrote:
In Christianty and Judaism, the book of Genesis states that God created everything from nothing and nothing else about creation.

Neither aspect of that assertion is true. First, Genesis does not explicitly state that God created the universe out of nothing. About the most detail it ever gives is: "א בְּרֵאשִׁית, בָּרָא אֱלֹהִים, אֵת הַשָּׁמַיִם, וְאֵת הָאָרֶץ." (i don't know if that will work - RTL languages sometimes come up funny in forums), and the precise wording used there allows for multiple interpretations (the next verse doesn't help much - it has similar multiple interpretations). And second, it has quite a bit to say - two chapters' worth - about the process and timeline of creation.

sonalobramo wrote:
People will deny the existence of something when they can´t come to understand it.

There are two problems with that statement.

First, people will also deny the existence of something that they understand completely, if, when they understand that thing, they realize that it cannot possibly exist. There is no relationship between understanding something and asserting/denying its existence.

Second, you have made yourself a blasphemer and/or a hypocrite. No one can claim to understand God - by claiming you can do that, you are saying that your mortal, limited intellect can understand that which is supposed to be transcendent and infinite. So either your mind is really infinite (you're claiming you're a god), or God is really not infinite (you're bringing God down to a level a human can understand). Either way, you're really pissing God off, and blasphemy is the one sin he will not forgive. Therefore, unless you want to piss off God, you can't claim to understand him. Therefore you don't understand him. Which means, by your own standard, you must deny his existence. You see? Either you're blaspheming (claiming to understand God), or you're a hypocrite (not understanding God, but not denying his existence).

In future, you should be more careful about insulting an entire community. Atheists aren't atheists because they're too stupid to understand God, and so don't believe in him.

sonalobramo wrote:
Quatum physics tell us that matter is made up of atoms which are made of space.. and more space.. and tiny little particles spinning around a nucleus by their own attracting forces and which are made up tinier particles and more space. So basically matter is just space and attracting forces. You can´t see the forces or the space, but you can certainly see the matter.
Basically, what you see is what you can´t see and what you can´t see is what you see.

Mm, actually, basically, your grasp of physics sucks. >.<

i could take your analogy apart scientifically, but this isn't the forum for that. i don't really need to, anyway. All i have to do is point out that the whole premise of your argument is off-base.

It is childish to assume that just because someone doesn't believe in God, the tooth fairy or Santa Claus, they don't believe in anything they can't actually see. Come on. Do you really believe atheists are that stupid?

i can't see heat, but i can damn well feel it, so i know it exists. i can't see force, and i can't feel most forces directly, but i can certainly observe the effects of that force. Furthermore, i can predict how objects will interact with a given force, what forces will be caused by an object and/or interaction, and so on. The things i observe could be caused by any number of things - maybe god is pushing stuff, or ghosts, or tiny leprichauns - but the existence of a force explains everything, and allows me to make predictions that i can test, and provide even more evidence. Thus, i can't see a force, but i can sure see plenty of evidence that forces exist.

God i can't see. i can't see any evidence of God that can't be explained by something else. Even if i assume God exists, i can't test that because it makes no predictions, so it's a dead-end assumption. On top of that, the descriptions of God are internally contradictory and make no logical sense.

THAT is why i don't believe in God. Not just because i can't see him or can't understand him. -_-
Tyler
That's why there's a thing called faith.

Faith - allegiance to duty or a person; loyalty; belief and trust in God; complete trust; a system of religious beliefs

(compliments Merriam Webster Dictionary)

You're not supposed to hunt for proof or logical explanations. God wants us to have faith - to believe in him without question - and to use his Holy Word as proof.

The only proof I'll ever need is the Word of God.
Bikerman
Tyler wrote:

I had to study many of the sciences in college. I came acquainted with many of them, but I never let them interfere with my religious beliefs, nor did I let religion interefere with science. They are separate, as Soulfire pointed out, and should stay that way.

Combing the two is like combing oil and water, it just doesn't work out.

I do believe in the Creation, I don't accept evolution, I don't believe in billions of years.

I am an ardent Jew and stay firm to my beliefs.

So you are a biochemist who doesn't accept a large part of biochemical theory ? If you don't accept evolution then you cannot possibly maintain that religion and science are separate and do not interfere. Science clearly supports the evolutionary theory of speciation and if your religious conviction is that this is false then we surely have a conflict ?
Likewise with the age of the Earth. Large parts of many science disciplines (cosmology, geology, paelaontology, geography, anthropology for example) have basic theory which your religious convictions refute. To say that there is not conflict is not supportable.

Chris.
MicahsFriends
This is a question of weather or not all the scientific information is taught in School. Have anyone ever though of the oxygen argument? it is that for things to evolve they had to be created in oxygen prohibs it from evolving and if there wasn't oxygen the ozen would break down and the sun would destroy the cell. I have another question for you, "Was the first molecule a DNA molecule, RNA molecule, or Protien molecule? Well it wasn't a DNA or Protien because they both need each other to evolve and scientists haven't ever seen it happen. And it couldn't have been RNA because for it to evolve it must have millions of years to do so. And because it doesn't have catalyst to speed up the process it would die in 30 minutes to two hours. And have ou ever thought where the origianal DNA information came from. I know and he told me in his word. We not fighting a battel between religion and science we are fighting a battle between two different scientific views.
Lennon
MicahsFriends wrote:
This is a question of weather or not all the scientific information is taught in School. Have anyone ever though of the oxygen argument? it is that for things to evolve they had to be created in oxygen prohibs it from evolving and if there wasn't oxygen the ozen would break down and the sun would destroy the cell. I have another question for you, "Was the first molecule a DNA molecule, RNA molecule, or Protien molecule? Well it wasn't a DNA or Protien because they both need each other to evolve and scientists haven't ever seen it happen. And it couldn't have been RNA because for it to evolve it must have millions of years to do so. And because it doesn't have catalyst to speed up the process it would die in 30 minutes to two hours. And have ou ever thought where the origianal DNA information came from. I know and he told me in his word. We not fighting a battel between religion and science we are fighting a battle between two different scientific views.


First as a fellow scientist I can debate your point by claiming the original RNA molecules at base evolution level could synthesise it's own catalyst. Research "ribozymes" if you don't believe me.
Experimental RNA evolutionTrends in Ecology & Evolution, Volume 14, Issue 9, 1 September 1999, Pages 353-358 Laura F. Landweber

As for the half-life of RNA in a microwave-exposed earth, I'm sure of nothing, but I believe there could be RNA hair-pin loops that could significantly increase stability, maybe the original RNA developed in geographical areas sheltered from the harmful radiation. There could be explanations and debates for both sides of the debate here. I agree it is a battle between two different scientific views. But this battle is rather a conflict of two perspectives of the same scientific truth. They both describe the fundamental nature and reality.

Back to science and religion, they do not describe the same nature and reality. Science classifies nature as all the actions and reactions in the universe that can be observed. Religion introduces a supernatural domain which is unacceptable to science. Science cannot accept a JEsus who ascended into heaven, into outer space to paradise which cannot be detected near Earth. Science cannot accept an immaculate conception. Science cannot accept Jesus walking on water, Moses splitting the red sea. Get my point...?

Science claims there is a natural explanation for everything, religion claims the mysterious and idealistic as supernatural.
sonalobramo
Quote:
First, people will also deny the existence of something that they understand completely, if, when they understand that thing, they realize that it cannot possibly exist. There is no relationship between understanding something and asserting/denying its existence.


Uhm, no. People will deny the existence of something that they THINK they understand completely. Most atheists are people who love having an opinion about everything they were taught about Christianity or whatever religion the were brought up on. Well, who´s to say that you´re interpretation of GOD comes close to reality.

Quote:
Second, you have made yourself a blasphemer and/or a hypocrite. No one can claim to understand God - by claiming you can do that, you are saying that your mortal, limited intellect can understand that which is supposed to be transcendent and infinite.


You´re misinterpreting what I said. I don´t understand GOD What I actually stated is the opposite.

Quote:
In future, you should be more careful about insulting an entire community. Atheists aren't atheists because they're too stupid to understand God, and so don't believe in him.


Again you´re misinterpreting what I said (this might be tipical of atheists ). I don´t think atheists are stupid. I actually admire their need to question beliefs that some try to impose on them. Nobody can understand GOD. Only an enlightened being can do so.

You´re right about one thing and that is that I should stop trying to explain GOD with scientific logic. Logic is fed by earthly knowledge and the laws of science don´t necessarily apply to the realm of spirituality.
Most people think there is no evidence of GOD. I think the evidence of his existence is overwhelming.
If people would just stop trying to make sense of everything and open their eyes than they might see it. I completely understand not being ready to accept GOD. He´s so close to us that most people just choose to ignore him.
Tyler
Bikerman wrote:
Tyler wrote:

I had to study many of the sciences in college. I came acquainted with many of them, but I never let them interfere with my religious beliefs, nor did I let religion interefere with science. They are separate, as Soulfire pointed out, and should stay that way.

Combing the two is like combing oil and water, it just doesn't work out.

I do believe in the Creation, I don't accept evolution, I don't believe in billions of years.

I am an ardent Jew and stay firm to my beliefs.

So you are a biochemist who doesn't accept a large part of biochemical theory ? If you don't accept evolution then you cannot possibly maintain that religion and science are separate and do not interfere. Science clearly supports the evolutionary theory of speciation and if your religious conviction is that this is false then we surely have a conflict ?
Likewise with the age of the Earth. Large parts of many science disciplines (cosmology, geology, paelaontology, geography, anthropology for example) have basic theory which your religious convictions refute. To say that there is not conflict is not supportable.

Chris.


Note that I said one of my first jobs was as a biochemist.

The conflict is the very reason I left the field of biochemistry for geography, a science that rarely conflicts with religion.
Bikerman
Tyler wrote:

Note that I said one of my first jobs was as a biochemist.

The conflict is the very reason I left the field of biochemistry for geography, a science that rarely conflicts with religion.


But this is not what you said, which was :
Quote:
but I never let them interfere with my religious beliefs, nor did I let religion interefere with science.


Now you are saying there was a conflict and you changed jobs because of it.
As for your new choice of job, hmmm. I am surprised you think that Geography does not conflict with a creationsist world-view.
Geography, being the study of the Earth and the interaction between us and it. The age of the Earth is quite fundamental in Geography so I'm puzzled as to why you think there is no conflict. Maybe you work in a particularly specialised field within Geography...
Chris
MicahsFriends
Lennon wrote:
Back to science and religion, they do not describe the same nature and reality. Science classifies nature as all the actions and reactions in the universe that can be observed. Religion introduces a supernatural domain which is unacceptable to science. Science cannot accept a JEsus who ascended into heaven, into outer space to paradise which cannot be detected near Earth. Science cannot accept an immaculate conception. Science cannot accept Jesus walking on water, Moses splitting the red sea. Get my point...?



I wrote:
Can you please tell me the defenintion of of religion. No let me tell you one.


dictionary.com wrote:
a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.


In my experience Evolution is a set of beliefs concerning the cause and purpose of the universe. So Macro-Evolution(which had never been observed) is a strongly held to religios faith. Now if that is true then based on what Lennon said it doesb't fit with scripture. And does Lennon also think that life jsut came out of nowhere. Isn't that a greater miracle without a miracle worker than with one. At least we can explain Jesus walking on water.

And you haven't said anything about the oxygen argument can you refute that to. And wht about he Secon Law of Thermodinamics. Which says that
All matter and energy goes from a useable energy to more unusable energy.

The first molecule would of have to detererate during the millions of years it evolves. And we have only see DNA, RNA, Protien, last between 30 minutes to several years.

This is i ashure you a battle between what Public schools are taught and what Private and Homeschoolers teach. Nothing more.
Tyler
Geography does not as much as many people would think. The world's age has more to do with geology than geography, however, if you have an actual degree in geography like I do, then we'll talk.
Bikerman
Tyler wrote:
Geography does not as much as many people would think. The world's age has more to do with geology than geography, however, if you have an actual degree in geography like I do, then we'll talk.


I think I could manage an intelligent conversation without being a graduate of a subject and I find it a bit arrogant that you should think otherwise. I don't insist that you have a degree in IT, a Masters in education and postgrad qualifications in technology and network systems before I talk to you, do I ?

A degree is nothing particularly special and certainly not a qualification that marks the owner out as beyond the normal realms of talk and discussion within the field in question.

If you had a PhD with a history of professional publications and membership of a professional body then I might be a bit more impressed, but a BSc/BA first degree ? Wow! Blow my mind! How do you fit all that knowledge in ?....LOL.....

Most of the people I talk to regularly on science boards are at least grads, and if they are only grads then they are at the bottom rung, most would be at least masters and about 20-40% would be doctorate level. I manage to keep up with these good folk so I'm sure I can try to match your graduate jargon and breadth of knowkedge with a bit of a run-up.

Don't let the mortar board weight too heavily on that impressive cranium of yours, since we've all got one or two knocking around if you need a spare Smile

(sorry, but academic snobbery rarely raises it's head and I'd like to keep it that way if poss Smile)

Chris
MicahsFriends
Will you please not talk about me and stick to what we are talking about? It doesn't matter that i don't have a Phd but i make pionts which is more than most can do.
Bikerman
MicahsFriends wrote:
Will you please not talk about me and stick to what we are talking about? It doesn't matter that i don't have a Phd but i make pionts which is more than most can do.


Read the post - it was a reply to Tyrer, not you. I was not seeking to have a dig at either of you, just a gentle riposte to Tyrer for his barb.

OK. You seek to test yourself against another with your creationist rebutal of science do you ? Hmm.....these arguments are old and crusty and were not very good even when new. Still, I'll remain sanguine and see what I can do..(small point - it is difficult to follow who said what. Using some quotes (the word QUOTE in square brackets) would be helpful in keeping it clear.

OK, I think your points were about oxygen and 2nd law.....
Quote:
And you haven't said anything about the oxygen argument can you refute that to. And wht about he Secon Law of Thermodinamics. Which says that All matter and energy goes from a useable energy to more unusable energy.


This is a misunderstanding of biology (and the earth's climate which was once almost oxygen free).
The oxygen argument is based on wrong assumptions. Evolution does not need oxygen and without oxygen the sun would not destroy a cell necessarily. Ask a plant. That is a nice easy one to deal with.

Next, the thermodynamics point. Again this is a misunderstanding of science frequently misused by the religious in debate. You quote the law and apply it incorrectly.

2nd law of thermodynamics says :
Quote:
The total entropy of any isolated thermodynamic system tends to increase over time, approaching a maximum value.

This is frequently taken to mean that disorder (entropy) increases with time and order decreases. It should be noted that this is taking the law out of context and misquoting it (it is a law of THERMODYNAMICS) but we can let that pass as it is not significant.
The mistake you are making is to ignore that the law applies only to 'CLOSED SYSTEMS' (isolated). If you put energy into a system you can (and do) decrease entropy and increase order. Since the whole Universe is the system in this case (or at least the Solar system if we are considering life on Earth as a 'confounder' of entropy, then localised decreases in entropy present no problem or contradiction, but the universal or solar-system-trend will be to increase entropy. Easy-peasy...

Do you see your mistake ?

Cheers
Chris
Bikerman
Sorry, I missed your last flourish....I'll deal with that quickly

Quote:
The first molecule would of have to detererate during the millions of years it evolves. And we have only see DNA, RNA, Protien, last between 30 minutes to several years.


Molecules do not 'evolve'. Some complex organic molecules, such as DNA, can 'replicate' but that is not the same thing at all. Nor do they necessarily 'deteriorate' over long timespans.
DNA is stable(ish) for a century or more. The record is several thousand years but that is unusual. It is, of course, continually repaired in a living body so the point is not really important in considering evolution in the round...This is, I'm afraid, half-baked creationist un-science, frequently seen in the normal forums associated with the creed. A bit of reading in biology will soon straighten out your misconceptions here....

Quote:
This is i ashure you a battle between what Public schools are taught and what Private and Homeschoolers teach. Nothing more.


Hmm...I'm afraid I simply do not believe that - it is not credible, and I speak as a teacher.
Still, I'm not particularly concerned where the mistakes originate from, I'll happily correct them if I can....

Regards
Chris
TrueFact
Well i found 14 pages and i just couldn't read them all so i'll drop here what i know and what i think.

In Islam we know that god created everything and made it ready for the man kind. When God created the universe he set rules controling it... nowadays we call these rules as science. Science is just descriping how the universe is working and how God created it... So in this way... nothing in science is conflecting with anything in the Islam and the Holy Quran.

And some one here was talking about a prove and the word of God is enough for him... well... Islam is asking us to explore the universe and even ourselves and tell us that every day we will discover something new as God knew that there will be people who won't take the word of God as an enough prove.

And science discover things that was mentioned long time ago in the Holy Quran (more than 1400 years ago)... and a very example of that was how unborn child evolve within 9 months which was descriped in the Holy Quran before any medical or scientific machines was to be created or made.
TrueFact
I've searched for a little on the internet and found few things that the Holy Quran mentioned 1400 years ago and the science proved recently.

http://www.55a.net/firas/english/index.php?

Navigate using the right panel to whatever you like...
Bikerman
TrueFact wrote:

In Islam we know that god created everything and made it ready for the man kind. When God created the universe he set rules controling it... nowadays we call these rules as science. Science is just descriping how the universe is working and how God created it... So in this way... nothing in science is conflecting with anything in the Islam and the Holy Quran.

Hmmm...that is not my understanding.
Do Muslims, for example, accept evolution ? I understand that Islam seeks to interpret modern science in the light of the Quran but I thought that if a clash or contradiction was apparent then science must give way ? I know that some muslims claim the Quran predicts much of modern science and whilst I do not totally agree with the interpretations I do not wish to dispute it because it is a matter of faith and interpretation rather than fact and theory.
I also understand that Islam has no central heirarchy of 'priests' and to that extent I guess it leaves more to the individual muslim to decide what he/she believes and doesn't believe. This seems more akin to Judaism than most of the Christian traditions and is, I think, more sensible ultimately.
What, however, would the Muslim attitude be to life on other planets for example ? My limited understanding is that Islam treats science as another religion, hence :
Quote:
Statements/accepted facts as:
E=(1/2)m*v2 or E=m*c2 are not what causes physical events; nor any relation that will be discovered later.
Energy=f(mass, velocity);
mass= f(velocity, energy);
velocity= f(energy, mass)= f (time, space)
time=f(velocity, space)
space=f(velocity, time)
location (a)= f (location[b]); location(b)= f (location[a])
or
the length of x is y meters; x meters is the length of y
are NOT the source of any thing. (f represents different functions for each statement)
Rather, as these relations are real while they are tautologies - determining each other by a vicious circle; they must not be causes, especially not the causes of reality; but results of one reality of higher (better adjective: undeterminable/uncomparable; because if determined, or compared, there remains no difference between the idols we reject and One God we accept) order.
And some one here was talking about a prove and the word of God is enough for him... well... Islam is asking us to explore the universe and even ourselves and tell us that every day we will discover something new as God knew that there will be people who won't take the word of God as an enough prove.
And science discover things that was mentioned long time ago in the Holy Quran (more than 1400 years ago)... and a very example of that was how unborn child evolve within 9 months which was descriped in the Holy Quran before any medical or scientific machines was to be created or made.


And

Quote:
ACCORDING TO ISLAM, TODAY, SCIENCE IS ALSO AN ALTERNATIVE RELIGION AMONG OTHERS (IN GENERAL).

COMPARISON OF ISLAM AND SCIENCE AS RELIGIONS:

1.The basic statement of Islam is: "There is no god other than Allah" (Qur'an:Ch.37 v.35).

2. Everything is created, that is to say given its qualifications, and directed according to these qualifications by Allah and while He wants.

"And Who makes (things) according to a measure, then directs" (ch87/v3)

"He said who is your Lord, Moses? He answered, Our Lord is He who giveth all things their qualifications and directed them." (ch20/v.49,50)

"Unto Him do all creatures in heaven and earth make petition; every day is He in work." (ch.55/ v.29)

"Then let man look to his food: How We pour water in showers. Then split the earth in clefts. And cause the grain to grow therein. And grapes and green fodder. And the olive and the palm..."(ch.80/ v.25-29)

"Say: He is Allah, the One! Allah is He on Whom all depend. He begetteth not nor was begotten. And there is none comparable unto Him." (ch.112)

"They said, burn him, and avenge your gods: If ye do this it will be well. We said O fire, be thou cold, and a preservation unto Abraham. And they sought to lay a plot against him: but we caused them to be the sufferers." (ch.21/v.68-70)

3. So, according to Qur'an, nothing can be explained fully when Allah is not taken into account. In other words everything needs Allah for existing. If you say that anything does not need Allah, or that you can explain something ONLY by a factor which is not Allah, you will have assigned this factor to some extent a property of Allah, which in fact it has not. And anything which does not need Allah, is assigned a status similar to Allah, a divine status.


Would this be a fair summary of the Islamic position with regard to science ?

Regards
Chris

PS - info taken from
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Troy/7568/index.html
corridor_writers
I have my own personal belief that God and Science are not removed from each other at all, but are actually two sides to the same coin.

Is it not possible that God is the greatest scientist of all? I am not saying we are all just lab rats for God, but hey, it's possible.
SyncM
Science is build of evidence and religion is build on believe don't compare them. The problem is everybody talk about evolution butt many haven't try to understand it. It exist a lot of evidence for every step in evolution.

I believe in god but i see him create universe true big bang he has put all the rules that create our universe.

Science is a way to discover and exploit ur surrounding nothing about if God exist or not.

The funny in this story is many believe in books and religion from GOD but under the years (2000 for Kristi) has normal people get in and manipulate the text and religion. Religion has become a politic tool and has use many times to get power and control over people. Just look at the Judas script that has been found so little we now about the true origin.
diyautowiki
In a way, I see science and religion combined as one and the same. Take mathematics for example. All the equations that have been derived merely reflect the ground rules that some creator set for us. With celestial bodies, given their density and radius, their is a universal equation to determine the gravity on that body no matter what. Or, closer to home, objects with opposite magnetic polarities will always be drawn to each other. By understanding these ground rules, we can, in a way, understand what "God" or whoever desires in our universe.
chick.peckin
If we look back at the previous centuries we can see that there was not any separation between these two topics. But today we do have it in the extreme. We also have both immoral science - not just by the nazi regime, by our own scientists today if you look at the torture of animals, and even the basic premise of ripping apart to know.
Then we have the religion without a head- also really dangerous. So many cults, even mainstream religion is transformed into a cult.

This can be seen as a result of the great divorce. And let's not forget Art as well- it is a triad, art science and religion.
Captain Fertile
I believe in God and I believe in Science too.

At the end of the day my belief in a God who cares about me and my little life allows me to sleep easier in my bed at night, it fills a need in my life better than the belief in Science ever could.

I have always been a person who deals with proof not faith, hence I grew up believing in Science. I once believed that the world would be a better place without any religion (holy wars, persecutions etc. etc. etc.) but since I found my God when I most needed to I can honestly say my life is so much better and so it is for many others too.

My relationship with my God allows me to be a better person and my relationship with Science helps me think I know a little more about what on earth (or maybe even in heaven) is going on from the human race’s point of view.

What troubles me is that Science has been proven to be wrong so many times so we can’t become complacent and believe it out of hand. But with religion the lack of Dinosaurs in the Old Testament is more than a little disconcerting.

Seriously though, right or wrong I don’t try to justify my beliefs to anyone (although I will talk about them when asked) and at the same time I don’t demand anyone share my beliefs just respect them as I respect yours.

Regards and bless you
The Captain
Montressor
I thought that they were toying around with the idea that simplistic prions (proteins that alter the shape of other proteins, Mad Cow "disease" being an example of a "proteinaceous infectious particle that lacks nucleic acid") were the first "life" forms, replicating themselves by altering the shape of other specific forms of randomly created polypeptide chains. As far as DNA lasting centuries, how do they resolve the fact that it can't replicate for centuries (because of those nasty telomeres)? Just a thought. Self-replicating RNA has a different method of replication than DNA so it can replicate indefinitely, but DNA (at least in its most common modern form) cannot. Did telomeres and DNA repair mechanisms exist before they were needed to make the transition to DNA feasible? Just some thoughts...
Bikerman
Montressor wrote:
I thought that they were toying around with the idea that simplistic prions (proteins that alter the shape of other proteins, Mad Cow "disease" being an example of a "proteinaceous infectious particle that lacks nucleic acid") were the first "life" forms, replicating themselves by altering the shape of other specific forms of randomly created polypeptide chains. As far as DNA lasting centuries, how do they resolve the fact that it can't replicate for centuries (because of those nasty telomeres)? Just a thought. Self-replicating RNA has a different method of replication than DNA so it can replicate indefinitely, but DNA (at least in its most common modern form) cannot. Did telomeres and DNA repair mechanisms exist before they were needed to make the transition to DNA feasible? Just some thoughts...


I tend towards the view that an absolutely clear and precise boundary between life and non-life is neither possible nor useful. There is a 'gray area' between the 2 which would include prions; virii; biological sub-systems - is a red blood cell, for example, alive ?; food - at what point does the dead food we eat become alive as part of us ? and probably numerous other examples.
Where does a computer virus fit in, for example ?
The telemere problem is interesting - there is a nice slide-show of modern thinking on the subject here :
http://www.hhmi.org/biointeractive/rna/telomere/index.html

Regards
Chris
corridor_writers
Montressor wrote:
I thought that they were toying around with the idea that simplistic prions (proteins that alter the shape of other proteins, Mad Cow "disease" being an example of a "proteinaceous infectious particle that lacks nucleic acid") were the first "life" forms, replicating themselves by altering the shape of other specific forms of randomly created polypeptide chains. As far as DNA lasting centuries, how do they resolve the fact that it can't replicate for centuries (because of those nasty telomeres)? Just a thought. Self-replicating RNA has a different method of replication than DNA so it can replicate indefinitely, but DNA (at least in its most common modern form) cannot. Did telomeres and DNA repair mechanisms exist before they were needed to make the transition to DNA feasible? Just some thoughts...


This to me would support the stance that God and science are not removed, but are in fact the same.

As diyautowiki said earlier…

diyautowiki wrote:
In a way, I see science and religion combined as one and the same. Take mathematics for example. All the equations that have been derived merely reflect the ground rules that some creator set for us. With celestial bodies, given their density and radius, their is a universal equation to determine the gravity on that body no matter what. Or, closer to home, objects with opposite magnetic polarities will always be drawn to each other. By understanding these ground rules, we can, in a way, understand what "God" or whoever desires in our universe.


In this sense (and I fully agree with him on this) that God is the ultimate physicist, mathematician, biologist, etc. The degree of separation we see in our world today is ridiculous, and I fully agree with chick.peckin when either taken to an extreme is a bad thing.

In case you missed it, chick.peckin said:

chick.peckin wrote:
If we look back at the previous centuries we can see that there was not any separation between these two topics. But today we do have it in the extreme. We also have both immoral science - not just by the nazi regime, by our own scientists today if you look at the torture of animals, and even the basic premise of ripping apart to know.
Then we have the religion without a head- also really dangerous. So many cults, even mainstream religion is transformed into a cult.

This can be seen as a result of the great divorce. And let's not forget Art as well- it is a triad, art science and religion.
web-geek
Personaly I belive that there is no debate in this topic, but that is just what I belive. I see science as HOW things happen, and I see religion as WHY things happen. I am a strong beliver that there was a God and that He made the heavens and the Earth. As you read the creation story you never read about HOW God made the heavens and the earth. He has the power to make it all just appear, or he has the power to use a "tool" to make it all happen. We can only theorize on how it happend. So the "Big Bang" theory could be true.

I Belive that once we have reached heaven, we could possibly have the whole universe open to us. We could know all the mysteries of science, and there would be more to come! Untill then I can only say what I personaly belive and theorize.

Remember these are my beliefs, and I am just letting you know them.. I will never force them on anyone.

Good luck to everyone in their adventures through life =D
corridor_writers
web-geek wrote:
Personaly I belive that there is no debate in this topic, but that is just what I belive. I see science as HOW things happen, and I see religion as WHY things happen. I am a strong beliver that there was a God and that He made the heavens and the Earth. As you read the creation story you never read about HOW God made the heavens and the earth. He has the power to make it all just appear, or he has the power to use a "tool" to make it all happen. We can only theorize on how it happend. So the "Big Bang" theory could be true.

I Belive that once we have reached heaven, we could possibly have the whole universe open to us. We could know all the mysteries of science, and there would be more to come! Untill then I can only say what I personaly belive and theorize.

Remember these are my beliefs, and I am just letting you know them.. I will never force them on anyone.

Good luck to everyone in their adventures through life =D


May I just say that you phrased that perfectly.... I don't think it could be said any better than the way you have said this.

I personally agree 100% with you.

WELL SAID!!!!
Bikerman
web-geek wrote:
Personaly I belive that there is no debate in this topic, but that is just what I belive. I see science as HOW things happen, and I see religion as WHY things happen. I am a strong beliver that there was a God and that He made the heavens and the Earth. As you read the creation story you never read about HOW God made the heavens and the earth. He has the power to make it all just appear, or he has the power to use a "tool" to make it all happen. We can only theorize on how it happend. So the "Big Bang" theory could be true.

You say that the creation story does not include the 'how', but it certainly does include the sequence and time-scale. It does not, for example, simply say that God said 'Let there be creation'. The problem, therefore, is to either reconcile the creation sequence and time-scale or to accept that the creation story is allegorical and not literal. Science, of course, is not concerned with disputing whether God caused the Big Bang as an instrument of creation....there is currently no scientifically coherent theory of pre-BB and so God is as valid as any other hypothesis. Science does, on the other hand, contradict many elements of the creation story as it is set-out literally...
Edas
I dont believe that God created the earth. There's way too much evidence to prove otherwise.
I can't believe some people in America are actually trying to bring "intelligent design" teaching to school. Their argument is that darwins theory cannot be absolutely proved, so they think it's right to teach intelligent design too.
The only problem is that Darwins theory has massive evidence behind it, years of study that anyone can look up, whereas intelligent design has no basis on reality at all. There's no proof to back it up. It's just made up. Shocked
Just because some religious fanatics can't get to graps with the theory of evolution, they say it's too complicated to have evolved, as Darwin suggested. I'd like to see them contradict darwins evidence first, and if they can do that, which I doubt, then they could bring forward THEIR evidence, the thing their theory is based on. There is none. Only the statement that the nature is so complicated it has to be designed by an intelligent being.
corridor_writers
Edas wrote:
I dont believe that God created the earth. There's way too much evidence to prove otherwise.
I can't believe some people in America are actually trying to bring "intelligent design" teaching to school. Their argument is that darwins theory cannot be absolutely proved, so they think it's right to teach intelligent design too.
The only problem is that Darwins theory has massive evidence behind it, years of study that anyone can look up, whereas intelligent design has no basis on reality at all. There's no proof to back it up. It's just made up. Shocked
Just because some religious fanatics can't get to graps with the theory of evolution, they say it's too complicated to have evolved, as Darwin suggested. I'd like to see them contradict darwins evidence first, and if they can do that, which I doubt, then they could bring forward THEIR evidence, the thing their theory is based on. There is none. Only the statement that the nature is so complicated it has to be designed by an intelligent being.


But as Bikerman explained above - science does not say that god could not have created the universe. And as myself and others have said, there is no reason to believe that god did not set evolution into motion and that Darwin’s theory of evolution is in fact correct. Yes, there are contradictions on both side but what if, as suggested, these contradictions are a matter of interpretation. When god created Adam from dirt – maybe the single-cell organism that evolved into man started from the dirt?

My argument all along has been that it is not science vs. religion, but science and religion. This theory of course is not for the hard-core religious zealot, or the hard-core anti-religious zealot either. Smile
Bikerman
corridor_writers wrote:

But as Bikerman explained above - science does not say that god could not have created the universe. And as myself and others have said, there is no reason to believe that god did not set evolution into motion and that Darwin’s theory of evolution is in fact correct. Yes, there are contradictions on both side but what if, as suggested, these contradictions are a matter of interpretation. When god created Adam from dirt – maybe the single-cell organism that evolved into man started from the dirt?

OK.....to a point. There are not, however, contradictions on both sides. There are no contradictions in evolution theory (otherwise it would not stand).
corridor_writers
Bikerman wrote:
corridor_writers wrote:

But as Bikerman explained above - science does not say that god could not have created the universe. And as myself and others have said, there is no reason to believe that god did not set evolution into motion and that Darwin’s theory of evolution is in fact correct. Yes, there are contradictions on both side but what if, as suggested, these contradictions are a matter of interpretation. When god created Adam from dirt – maybe the single-cell organism that evolved into man started from the dirt?

OK.....to a point. There are not, however, contradictions on both sides. There are no contradictions in evolution theory (otherwise it would not stand).


I have to disagree here. There are most certainly contradictions to the theory of evolution - some pretty big ones. I would agree with you that there are contradictions in everything though, but to say there are none in the evolution theory is a little far fetched.

If you want examples that are reliable and reputable, check out this link. This article is written by a Doctor ON the origin.com web site. These are HUGE.

http://www.origins.org/articles/bohlinray_5crises.html
make_life_better
There is not even a single shred of a contradiction in evolutionary theory identified in the quoted article. All that is there is the usual bland claims that because we didn't manage to recreate life with a few naive experiments in a flask in 50 years, that it couldn't have happened anywhere in the universe (with a huge range of environments and conditions) in umpteen billiion years. And that mutations and adaptations don't allow the emergence and development of more complex structures from simpler ones.

Come on - what is wrong with you people? In such a universe, it is almost inconceivable that life would not appear somewhere by accident. But I don't even need that. All I need is the possibility that it could have happened - and nobody has proved that it couldn't. If that possibility is still there, then there is no need to invoke any god or whatever. It's a much simpler argument than invoking any deity with all the questions that follow (where is god? who created god? etc).
Bikerman
corridor_writers wrote:

I have to disagree here. There are most certainly contradictions to the theory of evolution - some pretty big ones. I would agree with you that there are contradictions in everything though, but to say there are none in the evolution theory is a little far fetched.

If you want examples that are reliable and reputable, check out this link. This article is written by a Doctor ON the origin.com web site. These are HUGE.

http://www.origins.org/articles/bohlinray_5crises.html


Raymond G. Bohlin is a well known creationist but I must be balanced and also acknowledge that he is a molecular biologist and therefore should be taken more seriously than many creation 'scientists'.
His objections to Darwinism are fivefold and I'll deal with each in turn.
1) The unsubstantiation of a Darwinian mechanism of evolution
I think this betrays a lack of fundamental understanding of the theory. http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html
2) The total failure of origin of life studies to produce a workable model
Any introductory biology text will normally have a pretty good workable model somewhere near the front.
3) The inability of evolutionary mechanism to explain the origin of complex adaptations
This is a frequent claim and the only sensible response is - provide an example of such an adaptation and I'll provide the explanation.
4) The bankruptcy of the blind watchmaker hypothesis
The hypothesis was actually put forward by a supporter of creationism in an attempt to refute Darwinism. Bohlin goes on to say that
Quote:
The first doubtful assumption is that nature can provide a whole chain of favorable mutations of the precise kind needed to change forelimbs into wings in a continuous line of development. What is the larger miracle, an instantaneous change or a whole series of thousands of tiny changes in the proper sequence?

This is a total misrepresentation of the theory. There is NO chain of favourable mutations required or implied in the theory. Most mutations are unfavourable and result in spontaneous abortion. Mutations occur at random over time.
5) The biological evidence that the rule in nature is morphological stability over time and not constant change.
This objection is dealt with by the concept of punctuated evolution:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium
corridor_writers
Bikerman wrote:
corridor_writers wrote:

I have to disagree here. There are most certainly contradictions to the theory of evolution - some pretty big ones. I would agree with you that there are contradictions in everything though, but to say there are none in the evolution theory is a little far fetched.

If you want examples that are reliable and reputable, check out this link. This article is written by a Doctor ON the origin.com web site. These are HUGE.

http://www.origins.org/articles/bohlinray_5crises.html


Raymond G. Bohlin is a well known creationist but I must be balanced and also acknowledge that he is a molecular biologist and therefore should be taken more seriously than many creation 'scientists'.
His objections to Darwinism are fivefold and I'll deal with each in turn.
1) The unsubstantiation of a Darwinian mechanism of evolution
I think this betrays a lack of fundamental understanding of the theory. http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html
2) The total failure of origin of life studies to produce a workable model
Any introductory biology text will normally have a pretty good workable model somewhere near the front.
3) The inability of evolutionary mechanism to explain the origin of complex adaptations
This is a frequent claim and the only sensible response is - provide an example of such an adaptation and I'll provide the explanation.
4) The bankruptcy of the blind watchmaker hypothesis
The hypothesis was actually put forward by a supporter of creationism in an attempt to refute Darwinism. Bohlin goes on to say that
Quote:
The first doubtful assumption is that nature can provide a whole chain of favorable mutations of the precise kind needed to change forelimbs into wings in a continuous line of development. What is the larger miracle, an instantaneous change or a whole series of thousands of tiny changes in the proper sequence?

This is a total misrepresentation of the theory. There is NO chain of favourable mutations required or implied in the theory. Most mutations are unfavourable and result in spontaneous abortion. Mutations occur at random over time.
5) The biological evidence that the rule in nature is morphological stability over time and not constant change.
This objection is dealt with by the concept of punctuated evolution:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium


So by answering these controversial topics you agree now that there are controversies? I am not saying that your comments are right or wrong, but just by putting these items forth you have proven that there are indeed controversies surrounding the evolution theory.

You said:
Bikerman wrote:
… There are no contradictions in evolution theory….


And yet here you are defending these controversies….

Again - while I am not saying definitively that you are right or wrong, you are contradicting yourself just by answering these five controversial topics.

Which lends credence to my original comment that there ARE contradictions on ALL sides. How else can you be describe what you are saying here if not that you are defending controversial items.
Bikerman
corridor_writers wrote:

So by answering these controversial topics you agree now that there are controversies? I am not saying that your comments are right or wrong, but just by putting these items forth you have proven that there are indeed controversies surrounding the evolution theory.

You said:
Bikerman wrote:
… There are no contradictions in evolution theory….


And yet here you are defending these controversies….

Read what I said - I said there are no CONTRADICTIONS.
Quote:


Again - while I am not saying definitively that you are right or wrong, you are contradicting yourself just by answering these five controversial topics.

Which lends credence to my original comment that there ARE contradictions on ALL sides. How else can you be describe what you are saying here if not that you are defending controversial items.

You seem to be having difficulty distinguishing the words controversy and contradictions...they are completely different and mean completely different things.
I'll repeat again, so that you are quite clear - there are no CONTRADICTIONS in evolution theory
As for there being controversies...yes, there certainly are. There is almost no controversy within the scientific community about evolution - there are a few creationists who are also scientists (and by scientists I mean real scientists, not someone with a science degree and an opinion), but they are a very small group indeed and most of them are not biologists. There are two biologists that I know of who disagree with evolution - Behe and Bohlin - and both have been refuted on several occasions.
Most of the controversy is generated by creationists who would like people to believe that science is split on the issue....it most certainly is not.
corridor_writers
Bikerman wrote:
corridor_writers wrote:

So by answering these controversial topics you agree now that there are controversies? I am not saying that your comments are right or wrong, but just by putting these items forth you have proven that there are indeed controversies surrounding the evolution theory.

You said:
Bikerman wrote:
… There are no contradictions in evolution theory….


And yet here you are defending these controversies….

Read what I said - I said there are no CONTRADICTIONS.
Quote:


Again - while I am not saying definitively that you are right or wrong, you are contradicting yourself just by answering these five controversial topics.

Which lends credence to my original comment that there ARE contradictions on ALL sides. How else can you be describe what you are saying here if not that you are defending controversial items.

You seem to be having difficulty distinguishing the words controversy and contradictions...they are completely different and mean completely different things.
I'll repeat again, so that you are quite clear - there are no CONTRADICTIONS in evolution theory
As for there being controversies...yes, there certainly are. There is almost no controversy within the scientific community about evolution - there are a few creationists who are also scientists (and by scientists I mean real scientists, not someone with a science degree and an opinion), but they are a very small group indeed and most of them are not biologists. There are two biologists that I know of who disagree with evolution - Behe and Bohlin - and both have been refuted on several occasions.
Most of the controversy is generated by creationists who would like people to believe that science is split on the issue....it most certainly is not.


Yes, OK. I concede this point. I suppose one of the risks of an international post is that the interpretation of words - or rather the implied meaning of them - tend to be overlooked.

Not only that, but I have thoroughly confused myself on my responses between this post and the other one that you and I are debating in (‘Is god down with computers’.) In fact, I think my last response there belonged here!

I obviously am not keeping up well enough with these two posts, nor am I keeping up with the quantity of the feedback you are providing (in terms of absorption and processing the information. Perhaps it is time to agree to disagree and for me to bow out gracefully before I embarrass myself. Smile

Cheers.
nopaniers
I humbly suggest the following:

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1987/PSCF9-87Lindberg.html
http://www.amazon.com/Inventing-Flat-Earth-Columbus-Historians/dp/027595904X/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/103-3252273-1979853?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1176683265&sr=8-1
Gagnar The Unruly
Bikerman wrote:
5) The biological evidence that the rule in nature is morphological stability over time and not constant change.
This objection is dealt with by the concept of punctuated evolution:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium


I suspect that modern ecology and evolutionary biology is going to demonstrate that the equilibrium that exists in most ecosystems is not as stable as we assumed. Rather, ecosystems exist in states of local and landscape-scale flux, with local extinctions and adaptations common.

I also think more variability may be present than is apparent in the fossil record. Populations can experience big changes in things like phenology (the timing of life history events such as flower production or pupation), defensive compound production, and environmental tolerance without large morphological changes. Any of those is potential substrate for speciation.

With invasive species, we are seeing just how rapidly (and specifically) populations can evolve. Major evolutionary events can (and do) occur on a time scale written in decades. It'll be cool when the first invasive species biologist demonstrates speciation in invasive species (or maybe it's already happened and I'm unaware!).
corridor_writers
nopaniers wrote:
I humbly suggest the following:

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1987/PSCF9-87Lindberg.html
http://www.amazon.com/Inventing-Flat-Earth-Columbus-Historians/dp/027595904X/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/103-3252273-1979853?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1176683265&sr=8-1


All I can say is wow, that’s a…um….interesting read. And the book looks like one I need to make a trip to the library to read.

Have you (or anyone else on this thread) read the book yet? If so, what are your thoughts on it?
sabe
I suppose that I must say the biggest problem with taking any of the literal word of the bible is that what translations are you working from? How many of the "experts" are reading from the original script?

I have a problem with taking specific passages from a translation... I know that any translation that I have seen are not very close to the depth of any language to take any passages so literally. Just read any technical manual and then try to see how it is translated to "normal" language...

That is using the same language! Shocked

I you try reading any of the translations that are made from products you purchase from any other language. Like from Ikea, Asia, etc.

You get my point...
corridor_writers
sabe wrote:
I suppose that I must say the biggest problem with taking any of the literal word of the bible is that what translations are you working from? How many of the "experts" are reading from the original script?

I have a problem with taking specific passages from a translation... I know that any translation that I have seen are not very close to the depth of any language to take any passages so literally. Just read any technical manual and then try to see how it is translated to "normal" language...

That is using the same language! Shocked

I you try reading any of the translations that are made from products you purchase from any other language. Like from Ikea, Asia, etc.

You get my point...


Well said. I suppose unless you are there to hear it from the proverbial horses mouth it is impossible to be sure exactly what was said, or meant. In fact, even literal translations cannot capture tone or emotion. So…..it is forever up to the reader to draw their own conclusions and argue them with others who have drawn others….. he he Smile
nopaniers
Yes, I have read the book. IMHO it is a very interesting read, well worth a trip to the library.

In summary:

The church in the middle ages did not teach that the was flat, nor did almost anybody educated (including the clergy) in the middle ages. In Columbus' case he was opposed among other things, because he underestimated the distance from Europe to Asia by a factor of five not because he thought the world was flat. Approximately half the book is devoted to historical evidence against the flat earth myth.

The second half of the book details the circumstances - particularly the need of positivism to discredit religion - under which the myth was promoted - and why people still believe it today.

To quote:
Russell wrote:
Historians, scientists, scholars, and other writers often wittingly or unwittingly repeat and propogate errors of fact and interpretation. No one can automatically be believed or trusted without checking methodology and sources.


Russell wrote:
The assumption of the superiority of "our" views to that of older cultures is the most stubborn remaining variety of ethnocentrism. If we were not so ethnocentrically convinced of the ignorance or stupidity of the middle ages, we would not fall into the "flat error".


Russell wrote:
A shared body of "myth" can overwhelm reason and evidence.
daferx
well for me I believe God created all things specially mankind.,

well if it was evolution, then those things like the earth, or the animals like monkey came from? do they pop up like a bubble? lol of cors not.. and where did there life came from? dont tell me life just pop up like a bubble? and tell me if the science can explain about the life? or can they create a life?


ummm...
well in the bible Genesis chapter one to ten maybe. lo..
it tells us how God created the heavens and the earth.. it says there that He made all things in seven days..,, and for more information, 1000 days of man is ! day of God, the science tells us that the earth was made through evolution, i guess that its right it evolves with the help of God, maybe it takes 1000 years for us but in God only 1 day, so i guess it explained that through God he created the earth 1 day for him but 1000 days for us, so it really fits the science theory that the earth was made through evolution coz maybe it reaches 1000 years or maybe 1001 or some\thing,

ahehe well
the important thing is I believe that God created everything,,
Bikerman
daferx wrote:
well for me I believe God created all things specially mankind.,

well if it was evolution, then those things like the earth, or the animals like monkey came from? do they pop up like a bubble? lol of cors not.. and where did there life came from? dont tell me life just pop up like a bubble? and tell me if the science can explain about the life? or can they create a life?


ummm...
well in the bible Genesis chapter one to ten maybe. lo..
it tells us how God created the heavens and the earth.. it says there that He made all things in seven days..,, and for more information, 1000 days of man is ! day of God, the science tells us that the earth was made through evolution, i guess that its right it evolves with the help of God, maybe it takes 1000 years for us but in God only 1 day, so i guess it explained that through God he created the earth 1 day for him but 1000 days for us, so it really fits the science theory that the earth was made through evolution coz maybe it reaches 1000 years or maybe 1001 or some\thing,

ahehe well
the important thing is I believe that God created everything,,

So you believe that Genesis works if we apply a scale of 1:1000 then? Did you mean days or years? Your post seems to say both....it doesn't really matter, though..so let's assume you mean years...
The sequence in Genesis is:
  • Day 1 - Space, light & dark, earth materials.
  • Day 2 - Waters above and waters below.
  • Day 3 - Earth's crust and plants.
  • Day 4 - Sun, moon, and stars in place.
  • Day 5 - Atmosphere + animals of the waters.
  • Day 6 - Land animals + Adam & Eve.
  • Day 7 - Day of rest.
(One important thing, before we move on: evolution has nothing to do with the formation of the earth or the origin of life. Evolution tells us how species form once life is created. Theories of how this happened are grouped under the heading 'abiogenesis')

So we get the universe created in 1000years - doesn't fit very well with scientific evidence from meteors, geology, cosmology etc. The current scientific time-line would be more like this:



Then we have the problem of plants created 1000 years before any possible photosynthetic source of energy (the sun), and 2000 years after the earth itself. Again this would seem to contradict all that science tells us about the creation of the earth and the time-scales for life appearing. 2000years after the earth formed it was extremely hot and it is doubtful that there was a solid crust. Science has the time-line more like this :


As for where the monkey came from....it evolved. If you are meaning our ancestors then perhaps you mean apes rather than moneys? The family tree of the ape is given here:


The exact sequence from ape to human is still unresolved to some extent but a reasonable picture of current theory would be :


In short, trying to reconcile Genesis with what science tells us is not really possible using this crude method of simply applying a constant to the stated time-scale....it doesn't change the fact that the sequence itself is contradictory
albusa
science is the tool for study the greatfull of God!
cvkien
sometimes i believe existence of god and sometimes not. And when i believe on god, i'll think of all gods are exist. So, i can say myself a free thinker. and somehow i believe science more than god. Even sometimes i feel those god phylosophies are very rediculous. sometimes i doubt god's existence. I study human's behavior, so i earn my own knowledge or i can say my own thinking about relation of human to god. Like many saying out there, human use god to explain something that are unable to explain using science or prove. and also no body can prove the existence of god. No body know what is their goal, their command. and all arguments are from human themselves. but i swear i'll believe on god 100 percent only if i see god with my own eyes. otherwise, i'll keep tracking on with science.
{name here}
The thing about religion is it's cocky - if something is proven wrong it will not set itself on a different course. The scientific community will correct itself if something is wrong, unlike religion, which will just tell you that they were correct and what the other people say are wrong in a god's eyes. Well, that's not completely true. Geology has had a reputation of being a little more conservative than other sciences - Plate Tectonics was found correct even though it probably took a decade or two to convince conventional geologists that the previous theories were incorrect.

Carl Sagan wrote:


Ann Druyan suggest an experiment: Look back again at the pale blue dot of the preceding chapter. Take a good long look at it. Stare at the dot for any length of time and then try to convince yourself that God created the whole Universe for one of the 10 million or so species of life that inhabit that speck of dust. Now take it a step further: Imagine that everything was made just for a single shade of that species, or gender, or ethnic or religious subdivision. If this doesn't strike you as unlikely, pick another dot. Imagine it to be inhabited by a different form of intelligent life. They, too, cherish the notion of a God who has created everything for their benefit. How seriously do you take their claim?
volotao
You must think of a God that you can't understand the whole power he have. This is the point. Why do you believe everything exists? This is a hard point to think, isn't it?

Raijenki wrote:
I don't believe in God, and i don't believe in science.
Scienc Motive to don't believe: The planets before the big bang can stay in that minusculous place for 1 seg, then, how the where created?
Religious: I believe that god can't down in the world and say: "I will create a planet called earth".


To understand my point of view (if you want to), please think like we live in the Matrix (like the movie film) and God is the program maker of all. Nothing really is like we see, but virtual. The matter is made of virtually nothing but energy. The projector is a good God that want's us to be with him if we pass this "matrix" test. Please think. Try!
Bikerman
volotao wrote:
You must think of a God that you can't understand the whole power he have. This is the point. Why do you believe everything exists? This is a hard point to think, isn't it?

Raijenki wrote:
I don't believe in God, and i don't believe in science.
Scienc Motive to don't believe: The planets before the big bang can stay in that minusculous place for 1 seg, then, how the where created?
Religious: I believe that god can't down in the world and say: "I will create a planet called earth".


To understand my point of view (if you want to), please think like we live in the Matrix (like the movie film) and God is the program maker of all. Nothing really is like we see, but virtual. The matter is made of virtually nothing but energy. The projector is a good God that want's us to be with him if we pass this "matrix" test. Please think. Try!


This analogy breaks down pretty quickly.
1) The Matrix is an illusion and there is a corresponding reality for each person in the Matrix - their real body is alive and kept by the machines in 'power' generator blocks. If the analogy holds then our life would be an illusion and there would be a separate reality elsewhere.
2) The Matrix follows the laws of physics, as does the separate reality outside it. The laws are 'bent' in the Matrix but there is still basic causality.
3) The Matrix does not rely on supernatural or Divine powers to create - it is a logical construct which could be made by anyone with sufficient technical knowledge and sufficient power.
4) If life is a test then how do you explain the fate of children/babies who die before they can be properly tested? I presume you would support the Catholic notion that 'innocents' like this would go to heaven automatically if baptised?
nopaniers
I read an interesting article today about the decline in religious attendance during early adulthood:
http://www.geocities.com/deeann_regnerus/LosingmyReligion.pdf

Interestingly education level was actually a positive factor in early adulthood - of college graduates 15% turned away from their faith as opposed to 20% of non-graduates. The largest factors were actually things like drugs, and extra-marital sex, ie. moral things rather than intellectual things. Although chuch going declined significantly some 80% said that their faith was still as important to them as when they were teenagers.
volotao
Bikerman wrote:
volotao wrote:
You must think of a God that you can't understand the whole power he have. This is the point. Why do you believe everything exists? This is a hard point to think, isn't it?

Raijenki wrote:
I don't believe in God, and i don't believe in science.
Scienc Motive to don't believe: The planets before the big bang can stay in that minusculous place for 1 seg, then, how the where created?
Religious: I believe that god can't down in the world and say: "I will create a planet called earth".


To understand my point of view (if you want to), please think like we live in the Matrix (like the movie film) and God is the program maker of all. Nothing really is like we see, but virtual. The matter is made of virtually nothing but energy. The projector is a good God that want's us to be with him if we pass this "matrix" test. Please think. Try!


This analogy breaks down pretty quickly.
1) The Matrix is an illusion and there is a corresponding reality for each person in the Matrix - their real body is alive and kept by the machines in 'power' generator blocks. If the analogy holds then our life would be an illusion and there would be a separate reality elsewhere.
2) The Matrix follows the laws of physics, as does the separate reality outside it. The laws are 'bent' in the Matrix but there is still basic causality.
3) The Matrix does not rely on supernatural or Divine powers to create - it is a logical construct which could be made by anyone with sufficient technical knowledge and sufficient power.
4) If life is a test then how do you explain the fate of children/babies who die before they can be properly tested? I presume you would support the Catholic notion that 'innocents' like this would go to heaven automatically if baptised?


The analogy with the Matrix should be like bickerman said, but I suppose we can only be inspired in the Matrix, and don´t think the real life IS the Matrix.

Quote:
1) The Matrix is an illusion and there is a corresponding reality for each person in the Matrix - their real body is alive and kept by the machines in 'power' generator blocks. If the analogy holds then our life would be an illusion and there would be a separate reality elsewhere.


Think in the illusion only... not in the corresponding reality. Think this reality is only on the film.


Quote:
2) The Matrix follows the laws of physics, as does the separate reality outside it. The laws are 'bent' in the Matrix but there is still basic causality.


Think the "first" reality inside it, the "second" only in other time, after death.


Quote:
3) The Matrix does not rely on supernatural or Divine powers to create - it is a logical construct which could be made by anyone with sufficient technical knowledge and sufficient power.


Think on logical construct made by Divine power. It is not The Matrix, but The Life, with rules, with a God able to be in several places in the same time.


Quote:
4) If life is a test then how do you explain the fate of children/babies who die before they can be properly tested? I presume you would support the Catholic notion that 'innocents' like this would go to heaven automatically if baptised?


Think that only the one who projeted "The Life" have the correct answer, but for now I can presume that if the baby couldn´t make its own decision about eternal life (the "second" one), unfortunatly he/she can´t succeed the life.


Did you understand my point of view?
Bikerman
volotao wrote:
Did you understand my point of view?


Nope - complete gibberish to me I'm afraid. I'm sure you make personal sense out of it, but all it does for me is confuse and contradict. The only thing to do is admit that your view is not one I can work with so I just say thanks but no thanks and trust you find it useful in your own life, I'll carry on down this other road which suits me better Smile
.
socialoutcast
I don't get this religion versus science debate. It seems to me that these two areas of study should have any thing to do with each other. I'll let the science people figure out how to make and understand the tangible stuff works and let the theological stuff rest my soul and make me a better person.

I have decided that I cannot offer enough "religious" proof to convince everyone that God spoke everything into existence (so won't try) just as there isn't enough tangible scientific evidence to actual prove without a doubt that either the universe has always existed for billions of years, or that the universe exploded from a single lump of mass. Besides, what is it, science folks, how many billions of years? Seems kinda like a vague number for how precise science is supposed to be. Besides a 1% margin of error seems significant for scientific work. A standard margin of error is usually 1/10,000

Anyway, I'm fan of practical science. You know the science that is actually used.
volotao
Bikerman wrote:
volotao wrote:
Did you understand my point of view?


Nope - complete gibberish to me I'm afraid. I'm sure you make personal sense out of it, but all it does for me is confuse and contradict. The only thing to do is admit that your view is not one I can work with so I just say thanks but no thanks and trust you find it useful in your own life, I'll carry on down this other road which suits me better Smile
.


Bikerman, let me try just one more time:

1. We can make analogies of everything. As a rough example, if one man is compared as a window, the life can be the rain, the wind, the snow, the darkness and the night, meaning there is a sort of different things that occurs in the life and the people can´t avoid. The bible have lots of analogies. The science makes analogies. It is an allegory, a tale, a fable, a lesson, and "a narrative of imaginative events used to illustrate a moral or spiritual lesson".

2. The Matrix is only a film but we can compare it with the life. I can compare the Matrix´s real life (when we see the plug in the people´s head) with our real life and then the Matrix should be an instance of our dreams; but I still can compare with the opposite situation: in the Matrix we are living and in the Matrix´s real life we are dreaming. In these examples doesn´t matter whether we have good or bad dreams: we are just making an analogy for some reason.

3. Can´t you make a parallell with God as a program maker (the World´s Laws), even if you don´t believe in God, and with us as algorithm instances? If the film shows something more, just IGNORE them all. Our intelligence and creative sense can lead us to make abstractions just to make a parallell with the reality.

Let´s open our minds.
corridor_writers
I have been off this post for a while….but am trying to catch back up with the debate. Also, while I do not always agree with Bikerman, I am never disappointed (and always intrigued) by his posts. Smile

I chose to quote the above piece simply because it falls in line with my own line of thinking (which is also the point of Valotao as well) and that is that there is no reason to assume that Bikerman is not right, and that what Valotao is saying is also not right. In fact, there is so many parallels between science and religion for me to believe that either can be discounted completely. Who is to say that God is just a highly-evolved form of us; someone we could consider the ‘ultimate’ scientist. Maybe it was some highly evolved person or persons who started the Petri dish called Earth. Smile
nur339
Let me see here; do I know about the CRUSADES? Let me think what about the inquisitions? The crusades occurred--what some ten centuries CE (ad), so then Christianity was still obscure and among the pagans. Let me think; now, O' ya the Christians had been making war with the Muslims for 400 years now, and around 1050 CE the Muslims occupied the holy land. If my memory serves me it was in fact the pope and upper-management, so to speak, persons who made a plan to take the holy land, at all cost. A good plan it was. Offer anyone whom will kill, in the name of God of course, knighthood, armor, and other payment---march, fight-kill all who opposed or are in the way to glory, of taking the holy land. Did the authorities’ of Catholicism care the religious convictions of their warriors? I don't think so. Let’s let responsibility fall with JUSTICE here. The One True God would want that--all would agree. It was war. All war is evil---even and especially war made in the name of God! I can't remember Jesus teaching His disciples to spread the Good News through violence.
The pope made a deal with Constantine--history is clear here.
Now then, was it the pagans who sat at council during the inquisitions? Did the pagans burn all those people? Are perhaps the Catholic Church cleansed all threat to their power at that time.

Yes I will agree with one statement in the preceding text----what happens when unbelievers get a hold of Jesus Christ teachings. YOU HAVE THE MESS THAT IS CLEAR FOR ALL TO SEE TODAY AMONG THE CRISTONS. Sorry but this but in America I have the right to speak.

To give my OPPINION to the question; is Christendom doing the same in Iraq--no. Just using another religion and people as a front for what’s driven ALL war—money, and in this case everyone knows it is the OIL, second largest reserve in the world. But it sure makes the killing easier when your killing them --NONE BELIEVERS!
nur339
Into a room enter the Prophet-Founders of the world's major religions: Krishna (Hinduism), Buddha (Buddhism), Moses (Judaism), Jesus Christ (Christianity), Muhammad (Moslem), Baha'u'llah (Baha'i Faith).
There is only one chair. Who will sit in the chair? Who will sit on the floor?

Question
nur339
I'm not Christian per sa but believe Christ a Prophet, however, I wanted to give you a different perspective of belief system. I'm a Baha'i and was once an agnostic myself.

Satan: is a metaphor used to teach us the idea of turning from God, or sin; sin is simply acting in contradiction to what we understand to be God's commandments.

I believe it could be said that "Satan" is a representation of a part that all humans carry within themselves. In the Baha'i faith we are taught that man has two dual natures; man has a higher nature and a lower nature. The higher nature reflects Divine attributes: love, kindness, truthfulness, ect and the lower nature reflects the qualities of the animal: self interest, drives--food, sex, power, ect..

In this life we need to develop our higher nature so that it is more powerful than our lower nature. This is our purpose, in part, in this the material world. We need to prepare ourselves for the spiritual world
nur339
Evolution is not a matter of 'belief'. I keep reading in here that "... evolution is just a theory... not a fact." That, as it turns out, is true... although the word 'just' is inappropriate, and misleading... and it indicates that people just don't understand what a scientific theory is; they seem to think that a theory is just an 'idea'. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Science does not 'prove' things. 'Proof' is for mathematicians, coin collectors and distillers of alcoholic beverages. Proof in science is applicable only in the 'negative' sense... i.e., hypotheses and theories must be 'falsifiable'. When scientists do experiments (to validate 'predicted' results), they are NOT trying to 'prove' they are RIGHT... they are trying to FIND OUT if they're WRONG. NOT being wrong simply builds confidence that one is on the right track... it 'proves' nothing.

In science, 'theories' occupy a higher level of importance than mere 'facts'... theories EXPLAIN facts. The Theory of Evolution provides an explanatory framework for the OBSERVED FACT that the genetic makeup of populations of organisms changes over time (evolves). The theory identifies two (2) mechanisms which account for such changes:

** Genetic drift... statistical variations in allele frequency within a local population, over time.

** Natural selection... the non-random replication of randomly varying replicators.

There are a few important things to know about biological 'evolution'...

* DNA does NOT evolve... it experiences mutations (random).

* Organisms DO NOT evolve. Organisms are essentially the 'proxies' for altered DNA, playing out the 'game' of survival/procreation in 'meat space'. DNA whose proxy organisms manage to procreate get to move on to the next round... kind of like Jeopardy. This is where 'natural selection' plays out. 'Survival of the fittest'... a term invented by a British newspaperman... NOT a scientist... is a complete misrepresentation of the concept of 'natural election'. It implies (and is usually interpreted to mean) faster, stronger, smarter, etc... able to take, rather than share. But what 'natural selection REALLY means is something like better camouflage... slightly better tolerance for arid conditions... a new protein that permits the use of a food source that was previously toxic to the organism... the ability of an animal to run slightly faster than its neighbor, so that it's the neighbor that gets caught and eaten by the predator... not him... etc. THAT is 'natural selection'... ANYTHING that increases the STATISTICAL PROBABILITY that an organism will survive long enough to procreate... and that is ALL that it means.

* It is the genetic makeup of POPULATIONS of organisms (the 'gene pool') that 'evolves' (changes, over time)... NOT the organisms themselves. The foolish cartoon-version of evolution that christian/creationist puppet-masters describe to their flocks is pretty much one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard.... lies such as "Evolutionists claim that an ape gave birth to the first human."

There may be OTHER mechanisms in play which have not yet been identified and accounted for, and various scientists continue to quibble about that... but NONE of what I have described above is in dispute within the scientific community. Claims to the contrary by creationists are nothing more than a red herring, designed to bamboozle their scientifically-ignorant constituency... which is VERY easy to do.

No arguments, right?
nur339
More clearly stated—Isn’t Catholicism a form of Trinitarianism? The reason I’m thinking this is because the church, long ago, split The One True God up into three pieces; the Father—the Son—the Holy Spirit. Catholics please set it right here if my thinking is demonized.
corridor_writers
nur339 wrote:
Let me see here; do I know about the CRUSADES? Let me think what about the inquisitions? The crusades occurred--what some ten centuries CE (ad), so then Christianity was still obscure and among the pagans. Let me think; now, O' ya the Christians had been making war with the Muslims for 400 years now, and around 1050 CE the Muslims occupied the holy land. If my memory serves me it was in fact the pope and upper-management, so to speak, persons who made a plan to take the holy land, at all cost. A good plan it was. Offer anyone whom will kill, in the name of God of course, knighthood, armor, and other payment---march, fight-kill all who opposed or are in the way to glory, of taking the holy land. Did the authorities’ of Catholicism care the religious convictions of their warriors? I don't think so. Let’s let responsibility fall with JUSTICE here. The One True God would want that--all would agree. It was war. All war is evil---even and especially war made in the name of God! I can't remember Jesus teaching His disciples to spread the Good News through violence.
The pope made a deal with Constantine--history is clear here.
Now then, was it the pagans who sat at council during the inquisitions? Did the pagans burn all those people? Are perhaps the Catholic Church cleansed all threat to their power at that time.

Yes I will agree with one statement in the preceding text----what happens when unbelievers get a hold of Jesus Christ teachings. YOU HAVE THE MESS THAT IS CLEAR FOR ALL TO SEE TODAY AMONG THE CRISTONS. Sorry but this but in America I have the right to speak.

To give my OPPINION to the question; is Christendom doing the same in Iraq--no. Just using another religion and people as a front for what’s driven ALL war—money, and in this case everyone knows it is the OIL, second largest reserve in the world. But it sure makes the killing easier when your killing them --NONE BELIEVERS!


Just a quick comment here. You go into very vivid detail about the horrors and atrocities of Christianity, and the lies told to followers to get them to go to war for a “holy” cause. While I do not disagree with this, I thought it odd that you did not point out that the Muslim extremists do the very same thing. They make all sorts of promises about paradise and virgins, all in the name of Allah. They have their Jihad; their holy war. Not that one is right and the other is wrong. Both ideals are wrong. As you pointed out – at the root of either religion you find that was never what was taught. But as long as the greedy, the power hungry, and the zealot continue to find their ways into religions power we will never be free from such thinking. Sad

But all that aside......this actually has NOTHING to do with the topic of this post. You should start new post to discuss the atrocities committed in the name of religion. Unless you can cite any references to how this ties back to a religion vs. science argument. Smile
laurenrox
Quote:
Then we have the problem of plants created 1000 years before any possible photosynthetic source of energy (the sun), and 2000 years after the earth itself.

Bikerman,
I'm sure that this has nothing to do with the topic, but I couldn't suppress my curiosity. You're saying that there could be no plants since there was no sun (due to the fact that they can't photosynthesize). And this may seem like an odd thought, but plants in the ocean that go far beyond the reaches of the sun survive just fine. Why wouldn't it be possible for vegetation above the earth to do much of the same thing? In addition, how would the theory that the world was once covered entirely by water fit into this? Hopefully you'll be able to shed some light on this for me... (no pun intended)...
HereticMonkey
Bikerman wrote:

So you believe that Genesis works if we apply a scale of 1:1000 then? Did you mean days or years? Your post seems to say both....it doesn't really matter, though..so let's assume you mean years...
The sequence in Genesis is:
  • Day 1 - Space, light & dark, earth materials.
  • Day 2 - Waters above and waters below.
  • Day 3 - Earth's crust and plants.
  • Day 4 - Sun, moon, and stars in place.
  • Day 5 - Atmosphere + animals of the waters.
  • Day 6 - Land animals + Adam & Eve.
  • Day 7 - Day of rest.
(One important thing, before we move on: evolution has nothing to do with the formation of the earth or the origin of life. Evolution tells us how species form once life is created.

[blahblah]

In short, trying to reconcile Genesis with what science tells us is not really possible using this crude method of simply applying a constant to the stated time-scale....it doesn't change the fact that the sequence itself is contradictory


Actually, it can be reconciled, depending on:

1) Not fixing the time to a specific scale. That is, it's pretty much a given that the Earth wasn't created just 6000 years ago, and that "da" can mean "era". just as it does in our vocabulary today. That is, take The Bible figuratively, not literally.

2) It also depends on how you interpret the sun, et al, appearing in the heavens. The Bible points out that there was already light (Day 1); I'd like to point out that if you had covered the Earth in clouds (or equivalent), and then those clouds basically disappeared (or shifted to another location, like lakes and oceans), you would have the effect of the sun, et al, appearing (ie, they were already providing illumination, they were just occluded by the cloud layer), but were only able to make an actual appearance when that cloud layer basically disappeared.

3) Also bear in mind that only recently has there been made a distinction between bacteria and plants, and that we figure that blue-green bacteria were one of the first (if not the first) living things...

HM
videoguy
creationism is rediculous, it is rediculous that anyone could actually beleive it. why is the point of loosly interpreting hte "length of a day" if you are strictly interpeting that GOD created all of these things.

and who created god?

if you argue that god always existed, than how is it illogical that the universe and its contents always existed?

furthermore, the whole idea that you think that the bible is the correct creation story is stupid, there hare thousands of such stories, backed up by the same pathetic arguments and evidence as the 7 days story.
liljp617
The idea painted by religions that there is an omnipotent God (aka a God with the highest level of power) is contradictory. If God is omnipotent, then he can create anything he wants without question. This means he can create a being that is more powerful than him. Thus, he is no longer omnipotent.
videoguy
"This means he can create a being that is more powerful than him. Thus, he is no longer omnipotent."

so how will this being be more powerful, if god is already the most powerful. your logic doesnt make any sense. and how does god go from omnipotent to not omnipotent just because there is a higher power. this is a stupid arguement for an atheiest to make. so in the future, dont use this, cuz it not even convincing, barring its logical problems

and this is coming from an antitheist
Indi
videoguy wrote:
"This means he can create a being that is more powerful than him. Thus, he is no longer omnipotent."

so how will this being be more powerful, if god is already the most powerful. your logic doesnt make any sense. and how does god go from omnipotent to not omnipotent just because there is a higher power. this is a stupid arguement for an atheiest to make. so in the future, dont use this, cuz it not even convincing, barring its logical problems

and this is coming from an antitheist

-_- It is not a stupid argument, it is a classic philosophical paradox. Actually, it's bits from two related paradoxes - the omnipotence paradox and the sovereignty paradox, but mostly the sovereignty paradox.
corridor_writers
videoguy wrote:
creationism is rediculous, it is rediculous that anyone could actually beleive it. why is the point of loosly interpreting hte "length of a day" if you are strictly interpeting that GOD created all of these things.

and who created god?

if you argue that god always existed, than how is it illogical that the universe and its contents always existed?

furthermore, the whole idea that you think that the bible is the correct creation story is stupid, there hare thousands of such stories, backed up by the same pathetic arguments and evidence as the 7 days story.


Your point is duly noted, but there is really nothing to back your arguments or viewpoints, so they must summarily be discarded. At least people like Bikerman and HereticMonkey have a valid basis for their arguments, and present them in a logical and arguable way. I think this is the key difference between a constructive arguments and a person ranting.

My suggestion - save the ranting and try to base your arguments on facts or criteria that can be constructively argued. I myself don’t add a lot to the ongoing ‘argument’, but love reading the responses, especially from Bikerman (and I must note that I believe in God and am semi-religious, but I really enjoy reading Bikerman’s responses – they are very well structured, are very intriguing, and lets face it – some are pretty hard to argue.) Smile
Lbalkenbush
corridor_writers wrote:
I have been off this post for a while….but am trying to catch back up with the debate. Also, while I do not always agree with Bikerman, I am never disappointed (and always intrigued) by his posts. Smile

I chose to quote the above piece simply because it falls in line with my own line of thinking (which is also the point of Valotao as well) and that is that there is no reason to assume that Bikerman is not right, and that what Valotao is saying is also not right. In fact, there is so many parallels between science and religion for me to believe that either can be discounted completely. Who is to say that God is just a highly-evolved form of us; someone we could consider the ‘ultimate’ scientist. Maybe it was some highly evolved person or persons who started the Petri dish called Earth. Smile



I agree but want to take the thought one step further; TRUE science and TRUE religion agree absolutely identically and both are valid and real.
bgillingham
Here is one historical fact that somehow seems to not matter when talking to any religious zealot -- MAN invented GODS. God did NOT create man. We know this if we study early history and the evolution of culture and religion from our early days. As many Gods became one God - nothing else changed... this whole "single-God" blue-print didn't do anything to validate their beliefs, it just was driven home with a big HUGE slice of GOD-Fear (brimstone- anybody?). Man created God because he didn't understand things in the world - and figured that the super-natural must be behind the lightening, wind, waves, sun, moon, stars, creatures, etc. As we understood things better, these Gods had no reason to be - so they were >>POOF!<< history. The battle of religion over science has been going on for thousands of years - and science ultimately wins every time (what happened to Copernicus, or Galileo, or Newton). In times past, scientists actually had to fear for their lives from the blood-thirsty religious believers who would prefer to silence or sometimes kill others that opposed their beliefs.

How much conviction do you REALLY have with what you believe? -- if there are any "Final days" believers out there now reading this, QUIT YOUR JOBS TODAY!! You don't need that job since you can't take any of your treasure with you and there's no reason to save up for your a down-payment for your kid's first car -- prepare for the final reckoning and let me take your job. Aside from that, you would really screw us all over if you just "disappeared" at the moment of reckoning - if you were at the controls of a power plant, or a pilot, or whatever....

I think that it is unforgivable that we take the word of some long dead desert believers over the word of our peers in the world today. It just doesn't make sense that we fight over support of words from long-dead people; since Mark or John or Jesus said "blah bla blah mankind blah bla" it might have applied to their world - then ... 2,000 years ago. It is stupid that we'd go out of our way to make 2,000 year old stories apply to our situation today - especially in the light of contemporary science.

Religion is really good at the same thing that Bush used for the build up to war in Iraq... no, not that the Philistines had WMD, but that you should fear God and stay in line, or ELSE. Nothing scares me anymore, not Bush, not the priest - I know the truth is that God, the devil, santa clause, and tooth fairy are all imaginary. How is it that God needs money? Why are churches all making so much money? If you took the money away, I wonder how many churches and mega-churches would continue their missions (my guess is that maybe 1% would try to continue, but they would all fade away quickly since they need to pay the bills... nothing humble or christ-like about that, but it is a sad reality).

The problem with the God vs. Science battle -- if you completely put your faith in God since he did all of these things that couldn't be explained (like the natural creation of life, etc), as mysteries are explained by science - your God becomes smaller and smaller. Why wouldn't you want to know the true reasons for things such as life, weather, death? If I were still one of the sheep -- I'd try to credit God as the master scientist because you really sound completely stupid to me otherwise.

As for me -- I am happier than ever. I am my own damn God. It took a lot of personal strength to stand against the popular belief like this - even losing jobs over religion (me and my wife). I wouldn't have it any other way.
corridor_writers
Lbalkenbush wrote:
I agree but want to take the thought one step further; TRUE science and TRUE religion agree absolutely identically and both are valid and real.


Nothing is more subjective than what one considers ‘truth’. Smile
Lbalkenbush
Yes---I agree. I think the important thing one should remember when one speaks the “symbol,” true or truth is just that—it is completely subjective. I feel it’s a little sorrowful that this is not taught in the primary school years.
Lbalkenbush
Bgillingham:

Thank you for your response to my post. I was raised up in childhood as a Roman Catholic. I was “privileged” to attend my primary years of school within the Catholic domain. I think I can say---I used to live in Boston Massachusetts and I think you will understand the euphemism (still healing). The reason I convey this to you, is that I want you to understand where I come from in the context of religious experience.
You have made an assumption that I should clarify for you; I believe you think that I am a Christian. I believe Jesus Christ was one of the manifestations of God, not God Himself, of course. I am a Bahá’í, I will assume you have heard of this religion and possess at least a diminutive knowledge of it.
I want to make a rebuttal to some key points you attributed to me. Fair enough, yes? You don’t know me; hence, you are wrong to classify me as a “religious Zealot”. I assume you are an atheist from the text you posted. I think you should know generally, when persons write and denote God with a capital “G” they are referring their believe in One God and when they denote “g” as in gods they are referring to those who, have, and do, believe in more than one God. Personally I was raised, as I have stated, a Roman Catholic which is, in my opinion, a monotheistic Trinitarianism religious system of belief. Catholic’s will adamantly refute this categorization.
You mention the validation of people in their belief in God and how coming to the belief The One True God did nothing in “proofs”----True. I need to point out the obvious here and that is---you can neither prove God does not exist anymore than I can “prove He does”. I know you agree with this logic. I think one of the things that repulses me the most, within Catholism, is this fear based approach --it was so ignorant and foolish it is hard to believe it worked and harder to think it still does to a degree, however, I could careless. Their wealth and power is declining and will continue to do so.
In my opinion, there has been no church or religious organization that has committed more atrocities, against humankind, then that of the Catholic Church. I believe everyone, even the Catholics, know this. I want to get to the thesis of my post; science and religion. Copernicus didn’t publish his paper, or theory, until he was on his death bed, so to speak. He had good reason for this. I believe had he made known his theory earlier he would have been burned at the stake by the authorities. Galileo, who followed shortly in his work, was a little bolder and I believe to a degree confronted the church. He was placed under house arrest and forbidden to publish or research anymore. I don’t believe the Church sanctioned Sir Isaac Newton as a hieratic or punished him outright because the Church was losing its flock to TRUE science and needed, in their best interest, to hedge a little at this time period. The point I want to make here is that “The Catholic Church” does not represent God or TRUE religion either; the Catholic Church, in my opinion, is an abomination before God! I apologize to any Catholics’ whom may read this post, however, I’m a person with the, in this country, freedom to post my opinions.
Of course, in this world, you could never know the shallowness or depths of my faith. I think it’s clear you didn’t ask the question because you wanted to know about my faith. The idea of “the reckoning or rapture” dumbfounds me, in the twenty first century. How anyone can believe, faithful to a fault, in this I can’t understand. The Omnipotent God, of all things, has never to my understanding violated His natural laws in this---the material world, so how and why can people think it will be, or should be, different in some future date?
I’m going to try to bring my post to conclusion. I’m sorry, for what appears to have come to pass to me, the injury you have suffered, at the hands of or in the name of religion. Certainly, in my eyes, you stood above the average to have in someway stood up against the culture of those surrounding you at that time---and followed your conscious. I believe you carry this distinction, as a part of you everyday. Out of all the “blah, blah, blahs” I spoken in this post—‘I want to direct you to read’-----there is one thing I would hope you might consider in your thinking; God did not create religion (as it appears in the world today and I’m saying not just the Catholic Church) nor does religion, in any form known by the masses, discernibly reflect God and His Attributes. However, the Bahá’í faith is the most current revelation of God’s Word. I and I challenge you to investigate it, that, you can disprove it’s validity to your own self!
bgillingham
To Lbalkenbush --

I have to say that you've impressed me. I never really meant to call you specifically the zealot here - my intention was a collective "you are zealots" speaking to all who believe in any god.

Thanks for the tip about my capitalization of "g" for god. I will not use the capital letter anymore.

As for researching any other religions, I am done. When I know the truth, I am not going to seek the wild goose anymore; for me, I have wasted far too much time pondering this or that religion.

There is one point that I do want to argue. You said that there can be no proof of a god, nor any proof that he doesn't exist... well - it is historical fact that the earliest humans created gods to help them understand or simply deal with unexplainable events. This is a fact -- or proof that god did not exist before the early cultures invented him. If man invented him, the only chance that god exists if if he was sitting on the sidelines and wanted man to invent him .... that's a terrible argument to have to make, but you'd have to agree that if god exists at all that he certainly existed before man first acknowledged him.... Think about it for just a second --- it is absolutely ridiculous to think that there is a god. Yet, our culture has been ingrained with such a "fair-thinking" bias for anybody who works for god...

I am reminded of some good George Carlin that I recently read. He is comparing religious zealots to those who witness UFO's ... On one hand the newspapers and other media talk about religious leaders as if they are simply wise workers for god. On the other hand, the credible pilots and military people who feel that what they saw was real (and important enough to risk their reputation - knowing how these things label you as some kind of a crazy), are treated like crazy people. Having said this - there are a good percentage of UFO-ligists who are pretty whacked out, but I'd have to say that it is more possible.... based on the fact that there are trillions upon trillions of stars and many more planets -
corridor_writers
bgillingham,
You know, your comment that “On one hand the newspapers and other media talk about religious leaders as if they are simply wise workers for god. On the other hand, the credible pilots and military people who feel that what they saw was real (and important enough to risk their reputation - knowing how these things label you as some kind of a crazy), are treated like crazy people. Having said this - there are a good percentage of UFO-ligists who are pretty whacked out, but I'd have to say that it is more possible.... based on the fact that there are trillions upon trillions of stars and many more planets” reminded me of the Drake equation, which is one of the areas that I think most people who believe in god and most scientists agree on.

I bring this up for the benefits of ALL readers of this debate, regardless of which side you are on. Smile

This is a very thought-provoking mathematical equation. I would encourage everyone to take a minute and read about it.

The SETI site reports that "Frank Drake's own current solution to the Drake Equation estimates 10,000 communicative civilizations in the Milky Way."

http://www.setileague.org/general/drake.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation
sunpascal
mike4652 wrote:
Quote:
darwins theory

This says it all THEORY! A theory is something not proven yet!


lol... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory[/url]
asim
Hi all,
How do you know God exists? Are you on the fence? Or, are you an atheist? I needed answers.....
well this has triggred a lot times in my mind... but to be a true muslim i believe that Allah created world.... and rest all his going as he has made the to move.... but if you need answer to your question you can go to this website http://sciencevsreligion.net/
liljp617
videoguy wrote:
"This means he can create a being that is more powerful than him. Thus, he is no longer omnipotent."

so how will this being be more powerful, if god is already the most powerful. your logic doesnt make any sense. and how does god go from omnipotent to not omnipotent just because there is a higher power. this is a stupid arguement for an atheiest to make. so in the future, dont use this, cuz it not even convincing, barring its logical problems

and this is coming from an antitheist

The majority of people who have thought on this subject from an atheist viewpoint would beg to disagree with you.
corridor_writers
asim wrote:
Hi all,
How do you know God exists? Are you on the fence? Or, are you an atheist? I needed answers.....
well this has triggred a lot times in my mind... but to be a true muslim i believe that Allah created world.... and rest all his going as he has made the to move.... but if you need answer to your question you can go to this website http://sciencevsreligion.net/


Sounds like an interesting book. I would ask though, has anybody on this post read this book?
liljp617
corridor_writers wrote:
asim wrote:
Hi all,
How do you know God exists? Are you on the fence? Or, are you an atheist? I needed answers.....
well this has triggred a lot times in my mind... but to be a true muslim i believe that Allah created world.... and rest all his going as he has made the to move.... but if you need answer to your question you can go to this website http://sciencevsreligion.net/


Sounds like an interesting book. I would ask though, has anybody on this post read this book?

I try to stay away from mindless propaganda from people trying to make a buck.
corridor_writers
liljp617 wrote:
corridor_writers wrote:
asim wrote:
Hi all,
How do you know God exists? Are you on the fence? Or, are you an atheist? I needed answers.....
well this has triggred a lot times in my mind... but to be a true muslim i believe that Allah created world.... and rest all his going as he has made the to move.... but if you need answer to your question you can go to this website http://sciencevsreligion.net/


Sounds like an interesting book. I would ask though, has anybody on this post read this book?

I try to stay away from mindless propaganda from people trying to make a buck.


lol - yea, I guess everybody wants to make a quick buck - and writing something contraversial is always a good way to do it. Smile

Somebody once said....."Opinions are like ***holes. Everybody has one, and most of them stink." I think he was a bit biased himself though. Wink
timothymartin
"religion" is a "science"
timothymartin
nur339 wrote:
Into a room enter the Prophet-Founders of the world's major religions: Krishna (Hinduism), Buddha (Buddhism), Moses (Judaism), Jesus Christ (Christianity), Muhammad (Moslem), Baha'u'llah (Baha'i Faith).
There is only one chair. Who will sit in the chair? Who will sit on the floor?

Question


The one who is alive.
Indi
timothymartin wrote:
"religion" is a "science"

Only if you keep the quotes in place.
c'tair
Indi wrote:
timothymartin wrote:
"religion" is a "science"

Only if you keep the quotes in place.


You also have to wink with on eye to pull it off. Razz
Ankhanu
Indi wrote:
timothymartin wrote:
"religion" is a "science"

Only if you keep the quotes in place.


I was gonna make a "how do you figure" sort of post, but, well, this and c'tair's post pretty much cover it Smile
asnani04
My mind tells me to only believe in Science, but my deep rooted beliefs don't allow me to disregard God. I'm sure everything can be explained on the basis of science, or will soon be explained, but all these happenings in order do serve a purpose. Maybe there's someone who oversees whether that purpose is fulfilled?
zimmer
blackstripes wrote:
how bout a topic that a lot of ppl can relate to? did "God" really create the earth? or was is just a form of evolution from super nova? was adam and eve who were really the first humans? or were we monkeys to begin with that evolved to a human state? ok... so sum facts could be false both on science and religion... i mean, wut it seems to me... ppl believe in religion just by reading the bible... but then again, the bible is just a book. ppl could possibly just be reading sum stories made by a fictional writer in the past. or maybe not. science does give in a lot of facts, but then they are pretty hard to understand them... for example.... err..... like a goldfish! scientists say that the goldfish has a bad memory... but how the hell would they know that? they cant speak to a fish!! or even know wut runs in their minds. okay... so the goldfish isnt really a good example on how the world is created... but still, it does give a point that scientist sumtmes dont really know anything. so in everyone's opinion... wut do u think it is? was it a "God" that created the world and all of mankind? or was it evolution?


Wow! what a long discussion.

Looks a questions of who comes first. Chicken or Egg?
moncong
meretyping wrote:
there are a lot of topics like this one, but i tend to believe they aren't mutually exclusive.[/url]


agreed
Related topics
Our Origins
Why do you all hate God?
What kind of science are you into?
Theory of religion and science
Science Vs Religion!!!!!!!!
Is The Universe Finite?
What determines the amount of posts there are in a thread?
The Devil
In how many ways could science meet religion?
Genesis in the spotlight..2
Religion and Education. Good? or Bad?
Provide evidence of the Supernatural (God et al.)
Faith in your argument
Science vs Religion
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Philosophy and Religion

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.