GOD or EVOLUTION?

[nagarjuna]

I am a Christian, a Creationist AND I believe in science AND faith.

I am a Christ-centered Quaker. I "believe in science" (a little loose, but whatever) and I also worship my God, who I think of as a Creator. So you're right, science and faith are not incompatible. As long as you don't equivocate them (i. e., reading the Bible as though it were science.)

The question is; what is "science" and what is fantasy?

Incorrect science is not necessarily fantasy. It's not even bad science (as long as you're willing to admit mistakes.) It just doesn't happen to be true. Evolution, however, happens to be true.

Things widely believed hundreds of years ago as "scientific fact" have been proven wrong.

Some things have also amazingly stood the test of time. Even some theories that were "wrong", strictly speaking, like Newton's laws of gravitation, are still correct to a very good degree of approximation.

What's to say this is any different?

A huge mass of scientific evidence suggests it's different. Not EVERY scientific theory gets overturned. We still believe in gravity, that the earth is not flat, and that it orbits the sun and not the other way around. We believed those things before we could experimentally verify them, and now we have, by direct observation. It's not possible (yet) to observe macroevolution directly, but the evidence is rock solid. I am not exaggerating when I bring up these theories; disregarding evolution really has about as much scientific credibility as disregarding these other theories.

Just because someone has a degree in something and calls him/herself a scientist doesn't mean you blindly accept everything they say.

And yet creationists use that tactic all the time. They take the testimony of so-called "scientists" who are really just apologists for Biblical literalism as though it had any bearing on the scientific consensus, which it doesn't. "With just enough of learning to misquote."

That is a logical fallacy, to state something as fact because one or two people in authority say so when it is a widely debated subject among others.

One or two? Are you joking?

Hmm, you have an interesting view of God but I'm not sure which God you're referring to, since mine, (the one according to the Bible) isn't confined to time at all. Just because the world is somewhere around 6,000 years old doesn't mean He is.

I was being a sarcastic asshole. Except, not really. I think it's incredibly belittling of God to try to shrink His vast creation down to the size of the imagination of Biblical writers (actually, orators) thousands of years ago. Not to mention that the practice of taking Genesis metaphorically, rather than literally, is as old (at least) as Christianity. However, the other charge I take very seriously. All the evidence points straight at evolution. If you disbelieve evolution, unless you are somehow totally unaware of the evidence, you are in essence accusing God of playing a massive prank, which I consider blasphemous.

People’s responses are kinda getting long, and I'm finding it hard to spend hours and hours reading through them to find out a person said in five sentences what they could have said in one >_<

And saying it over, and over, and over.

I also find it amusing that people get so emotional about this subject. But I’m kind of tired of trying to reason things out with people who just end up bashing me and avoiding or twisting what I say.

Now you have a feel of what it is like to argue with a lot of Creationists. I do take seriously honest arguments/counterevidence against a scientific theory, even if it's one that I believe strongly. But I've done a lot of research on evolution. I've examined creationist counterarguments, and they are totally unconvincing. They are riddled with fallacies, misinformation, misquotation, and strained interpretations of how the empirical evidence lines up with a stiflingly literal interpretation of certain passages of scripture. And I LIKE scripture. I derive truth from it, including Genesis. But it ain't a science textbook.

Many are written BY scientists.

I think you said, "just because someone has a degree in something and calls him/herself a scientist." Very apt.

THEN come back to me better informed of both views. You can’t say “Christians believe this or that” just because you’ve heard that from someone else.

And you won't catch me saying that, because Christians believe all variety of things, including evolution. I will talk about what Creationists, by definition, believe.

There are some people who call themselves Christians who I don’t believe are because they go directly against what a Christian is.

This is a bit circular. Could you clarify?

[Shaun]

A huge mass of scientific evidence suggests it's different. Not EVERY scientific theory gets overturned. We still believe in gravity, that the earth is not flat, and that it orbits the sun and not the other way around. We believed those things before we could experimentally verify them, and now we have, by direct observation. It's not possible (yet) to observe macroevolution directly, but the evidence is rock solid. I am not exaggerating when I bring up these theories; disregarding evolution really has about as much scientific credibility as disregarding these other theories.

Not true. We've observed low-level macroevolution in labs and in nature.

[nagarjuna]

Not true. We've observed low-level macroevolution in labs and in nature.

What are you referring to? (I hope I was wrong on that one!)

Edit: The distinction between micro and macro-evolution is fairly arbitrary anyway, since they are defined according to "species", which is itself not a very well-defined concept (unless you already believe in special creation and define it as such.)

[Shaun]

What are you referring to? (I hope I was wrong on that one!)

Edit: The distinction between micro and macro-evolution is fairly arbitrary anyway, since they are defined according to "species", which is itself not a very well-defined concept (unless you already believe in special creation and define it as such.)

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html
http://www.pnas.org/content/105/23/7899.abstract

And that doesn't include the numerous subspecies discovered in reptiles and other animals in teh last fifty or so years that can directly be traced to pre-existing species, which we haven't been able to directly observe in the same way as the above mentioned bacteria.

[v.w.123]

What do you believe Drax as far as Creation or Evolution?

[Jack]

What do you believe Drax as far as Creation or Evolution?

Evolution. I'm an Atheist.

[shadowsmith]

Before I respond to all that is wrong about your logic here, I want to clarify one thing: Do you believe that the Earth is 6,000 years old despite mountains of evidence gathered from the universe, from dozens of different dating methods, and centuries of geological research that points to the Earth being a few billion years old?
God's time is not our time.

[Shaun]

God's time is not our time.

And that's not what I asked. Giving me metaphysical nonsense in response to a legitimate question provides nothing to the discussion.

With that in mind, are you of the young Earth belief?

[shadowsmith]

And that's not what I asked. Giving me metaphysical nonsense in response to a legitimate question provides nothing to the discussion.

With that in mind, are you of the young Earth belief?
No I believe that when God made the Earth it took him however long the earth has been here to make it. The seven days are metaphorical.

[Shaun]

I love how when the Bible is proven wrong about something people just go "oh, well that's just a metaphor." It wasn't a metaphor a few hundred years ago...

[shadowsmith]

I love how when the Bible is proven wrong about something people just go "oh, well that's just a metaphor." It wasn't a metaphor a few hundred years ago...
How would you explain thousands of years ago what a billion years is or evolution? These where simple people.

[Shaun]

They were smart enough to figure out how to create a system that exploited women and people of color. They were also well aware of what a day, a month, a year, and a century was...they weren't that simple. The people who wrote the Bible weren't Cro Magnon men...

[nagarjuna]

I love how when the Bible is proven wrong about something people just go "oh, well that's just a metaphor." It wasn't a metaphor a few hundred years ago...

Sure it was, depending on who you were to ask. Literalism and metaphorical readings are both very old. It is also not a matter of "proving the Bible wrong." If you don't take the Bible to be making statements about science, then science won't "disprove" it.

God's time is not our time.

Good, I'm glad you agree. So why are both sides still making the age of the earth into a theological issue?

This thread is really two debates, not one. Making it, as the title suggests "God vs. Evolution," is a mistaken dichotomy and only confuses the issue.

[shadowsmith]

Good, I'm glad you agree. So why are both sides still making the age of the earth into a theological issue?

This thread is really two debates, not one. Making it, as the title suggests "God vs. Evolution," is a mistaken dichotomy and only confuses the issue.

Yes it should be called Creation vs. Evolution.

[nagarjuna]

Yes it should be called Creation vs. Evolution.

Why not creation through evolution? God is still creating.

[Jack]

Yes it should be called Creation vs. Evolution.

I agree, that's a trip up on my part.

[MetallicGryffon]

I believe, because just sit back and think about how many times God saved your but.

[Shaun]

That would be a total of zero. Human beings have saved my butt many a time, but there's zero evidence that any supreme being was involved.

[Andy]

That would be a total of zero. Human beings have saved my butt many a time, but there's zero evidence that any supreme being was involved.
There's zero evidence that a supreme being was not involved.

Can't prove a universal negative! :D

Ever see this clip (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IaudsdrPjY)? It suggests that is a supreme being was involved, then it would not be in a very noticeable way. Yeah it's from Futurama, but they put a certain amount of seriousness in that episode.

God Entity: Bender, being God isn't easy. If you do too much, people get dependent on you. And if you do nothing, they lose hope. You have to use a light touch, like a safecracker or a pickpocket.
Bender: Or a guy who burns down a bar for the insurance money.
God Entity: Yes, if he makes it look like an electrical thing. If you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all.

[Shaun]

The problem is that the whole God deal comes from a position that relies entirely upon faith that something exists, even though you cannot prove he exists, no matter what feelings you may have. So, believing or not believing in God is inevitably irrelevant, unless that belief or non-belief begins to affect how others are allowed to lead their lives...in that case, we're talking about the use of unfounded belief as a controlling force.

It should also be noted that I don't have to prove or disprove God. I didn't make the claim that he exists. Religious people did. If you make the claim, it's your job to prove it. Otherwise, leave me alone with it :P

[Andy]

The problem is that the whole God deal comes from a position that relies entirely upon faith that something exists, even though you cannot prove he exists, no matter what feelings you may have.
The problem is that the whole no-God deal comes from a position that relies entirely upon faith that something does not exist, even though you cannot prove he does not exist, no matter what feelings you may have.

It should also be noted that I don't have to prove or disprove God. I didn't make the claim that he exists. Religious people did. If you make the claim, it's your job to prove it. Otherwise, leave me alone with it :P
No, it's much more fun (and intellectually interesting) to not leave you alone. :angel:

[Shaun]

Sadly, that argument doesn't work, since, again, I never made the claim that God exists. Otherwise, by your logic, you'd have to accept that belief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster is just as legitimate as belief in God. I know some religious people who would find that grossly offensive.

[Mercy]

The problem is that the whole no-God deal comes from a position that relies entirely upon faith that something does not exist, even though you cannot prove he does not exist, no matter what feelings you may have.. :angel:

It is not necessary to prove a negative. If you can not prove something exists, then it can not exist.

[Shaun]

Exactly. Otherwise, everything exists, no matter how ridiculous :P

[Banana]

If you can not prove something exists, then it can not exist.

Actually... no. It's impossible to prove that anything exists. Your argument is illogical. Of course, the computer in front of me could be real, but by your logic, there is no chance of this.

[Mercy]

Actually... no. It's impossible to prove that anything exists. Your argument is illogical. Of course, the computer in front of me could be real, but by your logic, there is no chance of this.
This is a logical fallacy in itself. If there was no such thing as existence, there would be no physical or mental form. It has been scientifically proven that we, as beings, do exist. A is A.

And by your logic, if nothing was thought to exist, no one should have a problem with genocide. After all, those people don't really exist, do they?

[Banana]

This is a logical fallacy in itself. If there was no such thing as existence, there would be no physical or mental form. It has been scientifically proven that we, as beings, do exist. A is A.

I would accept this argument if you could prove that mental forms, physical forms, or even science exists.

I suppose that there must be something it all comes down to. After all, if this is all an illusion, there must be something experiencing the illusion. So yes, I know I'm real, maybe not as I think I am, but I am still experiencing. I know that was worded terribly, but I can't think of another way to say it.

And by your logic, if nothing was thought to exist, no one should have a problem with genocide. After all, those people don't really exist, do they?

I never said nothing is thought to exist. I actually do think that I'm in front of my computer right now, I just can't prove that it's actually here. Thinking something is there, and proving it is are completely separate matters.

[Shaun]

I think that in order for us to have any sort of meaningful debate that we're going to have to accept certain things as true (namely existence). Otherwise we'll spend hours arguing over whether stuff exists and get nowhere at all. Nobody can prove that anything actual exists anymore than we can prove that God exists. That's a philosophical argument that cannot be effectively answered, though many have tried.

[Andy]

I think that in order for us to have any sort of meaningful debate that we're going to have to accept certain things as true (namely existence). Otherwise we'll spend hours arguing over whether stuff exists and get nowhere at all. Nobody can prove that anything actual exists anymore than we can prove that God exists. That's a philosophical argument that cannot be effectively answered, though many have tried.
*Agrees*

A discussion on the meaning of existence would probably be better suited to its own thread.

[Shaun]

The irony being that such a discussion would be...meaningless. You either accept that we exist, or you don't and have no idea what anything is. Neither is a defensible position, and I have no idea how one survives the latter...

[Andy]

The irony being that such a discussion would be...meaningless. You either accept that we exist, or you don't and have no idea what anything is. Neither is a defensible position, and I have no idea how one survives the latter...
It would be fun though.

On a side note, if anyone wants to argue that nothing exists, I invite that person to send me all their money. :)

[Banana]

Okay, for the sake of this debate, I can agree to that. But not with the whole "something must be proven to be real" thing.
But assuming that we live in a material world brings up this issue: how are we supposed to prove an immaterial being (God) with the material (science)? It's like trying to prove that light is real where there can be no light.

[Andy]

Okay, for the sake of this debate, I can agree to that. But not with the whole "something must be proven to be real" thing.
But assuming that we live in a material world brings up this issue: how are we supposed to prove an immaterial being (God) with the material (science)? It's like trying to prove that light is real where there can be no light.
Yeah, or more broadly, it's like trying to measure or prove ANYTHING for which we don't have the necessary instruments or equipment.

There are "proofs", though. Like the First Cause argument, which says that it is logically impossible for an infinite amount of time to have elapsed before the present day, and there must have been some "first thing" which set everything into motion.

There's also the argument from the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which says that the total amount of useable energy in a closed system (like the universe) is always decreasing and dissipating, which means that the universe has not existed forever, since it would have completely run out of useable energy by now.

These proofs are more philosophical than scientific, and so not everyone considers them sufficient.

[nagarjuna]

On a side note, if anyone wants to argue that nothing exists, I invite that person to send me all their money. :)

You're on, but I'll hold on to my $.

Now, it all begins with set theory...

But assuming that we live in a material world brings up this issue: how are we supposed to prove an immaterial being (God) with the material (science)? It's like trying to prove that light is real where there can be no light.

The assumption here is that God is immaterial (or that he can't in any way arise from or be an aspect of, the material universe.) This isn't my belief. I may be in a very slight minority here, but I reserve my right to nitpick, dammit!

[Banana]

The assumption here is that God is immaterial (or that he can't in any way arise from or be an aspect of, the material universe.) This isn't my belief. I may be in a very slight minority here, but I reserve my right to nitpick, dammit!

Actually, I think most people who believe in God believe that He has the ability to be material. Jesus and miracles, for example.

[Bowie20049]

No, most people believe God is immaterial because he can be anywhere and is apparently everything.

[Andy]

No, most people believe God is immaterial because he can be anywhere and is apparently everything.
God = omnipotent, therefore he can be immaterial or material at will.

I don't think most people believe God = everything. That sounds more like pantheism, and it does not typically overlap with Christianity.

[Bowie20049]

I think I worded that wrong :P

[nagarjuna]

God = omnipotent, therefore he can be immaterial or material at will.

I know people think God *can* be material, I was saying that I think (s)he *is* material. In some sense.

I don't think most people believe God = everything. That sounds more like pantheism, and it does not typically overlap with Christianity.

Depends what you mean by "typically." There is a strong current of panentheism (God-in-everything/everything-in-God) in Christianity (and in Judaism and Islam also.) There's certainly a lot of support for that view in the Bible.

[Andy]

Depends what you mean by "typically." There is a strong current of panentheism (God-in-everything/everything-in-God) in Christianity (and in Judaism and Islam also.) There's certainly a lot of support for that view in the Bible.
This big hooplah about Jesus is that God actually entered his creation, became a person. If God already was his creation, already was all the people, then it wouldn't be so significant.

[nagarjuna]

This big hooplah about Jesus is that God actually entered his creation, became a person. If God already was his creation, already was all the people, then it wouldn't be so significant.

In Christianity, Jesus is a manifestation of God. Why shouldn't God manifest himself as a finite creation? Perhaps that is how he meant to reveal that he is the All.

Besides, Jesus himself is omnipresent. He is/was not just a particular person localized to one place and time.

[RavanReborn]

in indian culture we believe that there was one true form of power or source of energy then 3 powers came out of it one for creation one for livelihood & one for destruction then came 10 types of "prajtieys" or you can say tribes these were
dev=gods :D
manav=humans :)
raksh=demons :mad:
& so on all of these have different lifespan & powers
whatever is born will die one day including gods
now coming to the concept of soul mates as it is related . To form a human,god or demon one small ball of energy will come out of the main source it will then divide into two one forming male :cool: another female :blush: they then will keep on taking births they are called soul mates when one day you will accidentally meet your soul mate :hug: then only this cycle of births will stop then you both will combine & go to that main source

this was all about religion now coming to scientific part or evolution

according to the above story gods are evolved form of some other species which could be aliens or some other thing unknown to us so humans evolved from adam (in india manu is the father of all manavs) so for gods it was (sur) for demons (asur) even science believe in adam so it could be true for gods & demons also which could be an another type of species like adam represents human species there could be something else going to even more backward times you will see that monkeys were our ancestors but you will also see that their evolution divided one forming gorillas & chimpanzees others humans so there could be another two branches also which could have been evolved as demons & gods or as told in our mythology there could have been 10 more branches also ... so what i think is that every thing is science & evolution but for the humans who can't understand scientific things these categorizations were done for them & there are some broken links also which we do not know as our technology is not that advanced .

[g&eforever]

God created the earth! He has the power to do so! What so one day there was nothing and poof theres the earth so the scientists say its evolution. There is only one person in the world that could have the power to make something appear which is God himself. Evolution may play in a part over the years but God first got us started. Think how was Evolution started by God! God started evolution. He is the one that makes things happen! No we are not first made out of apes or monkeys God made us in his own image! The story of Adam and Eve tells it all !!!!! Sure we have traits just like monkeys and apes but it does not mean we evolved from them!

[Jack]

Uhuh, this ol' chestnut has been revived.

God created the earth! He has the power to do so! What so one day there was nothing and poof theres the earth so the scientists say its evolution. There is only one person in the world that could have the power to make something appear which is God himself. Evolution may play in a part over the years but God first got us started. Think how was Evolution started by God! God started evolution. He is the one that makes things happen! No we are not first made out of apes or monkeys God made us in his own image! The story of Adam and Eve tells it all !!!!! Sure we have traits just like monkeys and apes but it does not mean we evolved from them!

Don't have time to reply in full right now, but this is terribly ill informed.


Evolution does not attempt to explain the origins of Earth or, indeed, the universe.
Genesis is NOT fact. End of.


I imagine someone will get to this before I do, anyway. :P

[g&eforever]

Uhuh, this ol' chestnut has been revived.



Don't have time to reply in full right now, but this is terribly ill informed.


Evolution does not attempt to explain the origins of Earth or, indeed, the universe.
Genesis is NOT fact. End of.


I imagine someone will get to this before I do, anyway. :P

See I have not been ill informed! It is against my religion to believe that God has not created the world. So please enlighten me!

[nagarjuna]

God created the earth! He has the power to do so! What so one day there was nothing and poof theres the earth so the scientists say its evolution. There is only one person in the world that could have the power to make something appear which is God himself. Evolution may play in a part over the years but God first got us started. Think how was Evolution started by God! God started evolution. He is the one that makes things happen! No we are not first made out of apes or monkeys God made us in his own image! The story of Adam and Eve tells it all !!!!! Sure we have traits just like monkeys and apes but it does not mean we evolved from them!

1. We didn't evolve from apes or monkeys; we are more like close cousins.
2. It's likely that not even the human authors of the Bible thought of Adam and Eve as literal historic persons. In any case, a lot of the earliest Christian authors (like St. Augustine) ridiculed people who took Genesis literally. So this isn't some new secular humanist plot, it's as old as Christianity and older.
3. You don't go from nothing to earth in a split second. Anyway, what does that have to do with evolution? I thought we were talking about monkeys and people, not planets.
4. First you say God started evolution then deny evolution.
5. I agree that God(dess) makes things happen. But (S)he makes them happen using the regular, deep laws of nature, not magic. Just like you weren't poofed into existence (your mother's body had to grow you slowly), nothing really is.
6. I believe in God and in evolution. The conflict between them is culture and politics, not logic.

[Shaun]

See I have not been ill informed! It is against my religion to believe that God has not created the world. So please enlighten me!

Well, actually, you were, since you made several arguments that are based on misinformation and misinterpretation. And I'm not talking about your religion. That's an entirely different problem.

[Bowie20049]

God created the earth! He has the power to do so! What so one day there was nothing and poof theres the earth so the scientists say its evolution. There is only one person in the world that could have the power to make something appear which is God himself. Evolution may play in a part over the years but God first got us started. Think how was Evolution started by God! God started evolution. He is the one that makes things happen! No we are not first made out of apes or monkeys God made us in his own image! The story of Adam and Eve tells it all !!!!! Sure we have traits just like monkeys and apes but it does not mean we evolved from them!

I know I'm not the first to think 'Troll'

[Banana]

There is a major question evolution does not account for: how did life even begin? And the response, "We don't know, but science will show us someday!"is the equivalent to, "Well, the Bible says...”

We are only beginning to appreciate just how complex a single cell is, the most basic form of life. Scientists, whom you all hold in such high esteem, have said that the chances of life are pretty much 0%.

So how can you have so much faith in something that doesn’t even answer the most fundamental question?

[Shaun]

The next person who misinterprets evolution as an explanation for how life came into existence will get stabbed by me.

Evolution is only about how life got to where it is now AFTER the moment of creation. Whatever started creation is a guess at this point. We have evidence that suggests the Big Bang was primarily responsible, but that is only a hypothesis at this point, and not quite at the level of theory that evolution is.

That said, I disagree with this:
And the response, "We don't know, but science will show us someday!"is the equivalent to, "Well, the Bible says...”

Not quite. When scientists say "we don't know right now, but we will," they are, with rare exception, making a true statement. Based on the advances in science, we do know that there are a lot of things we don't know right now that we will. It's inevitable that many of the mysteries of life will be answered. Maybe not all of them, but still. So, this isn't like saying "the Bible says." Saying "the Bible says" is an empty gesture, whereas saying "I don't know" is not. The latter is an honest answer, while the former is a faith-based gesture that is grounded only in belief, not in an essential truth.

We are only beginning to appreciate just how complex a single cell is, the most basic form of life. Scientists, whom you all hold in such high esteem, have said that the chances of life are pretty much 0%.

I'd love to know which scientists you're talking about, because the scientists I know would never say that. Michio Kaku, Stephen Hawking, and dozens and dozens of other prominent scientists have already said that the certainty of life elsewhere in the universe is pretty much 100%. What isn't known is whether we'll ever meet those lifeforms. The universe is a big place. The chances of life arising may seem small on a human time scale, but in universal time, they're quite high indeed.

[Banana]

Well, I just daw a documentry of many scientists saying the exact same things I did.

[Shaun]

The name of the documentary?

[Taka]

In answer to the thread's name, almost certainly EVOLUTION, unless considerable evidence arises the contrary.

There is a major question evolution does not account for: how did life even begin? And the response, "We don't know, but science will show us someday!"is the equivalent to, "Well, the Bible says...”

No, no, no. Those two responses are nothing alike. The bible answer is based on blind faith: it is an "answer" based on no evidence at all - after all, no-one was around when life first arose (well, excluding the little ameoba guy who formed, of course). The science answer is ADMITTING to not knowing, but expressing hope that rational scientific enquiry and discovery will tell us an answer.

Neither side really knows the answer, but at least the scientists are honest enough not to delude themselves and others by claiming the have the answer.

Scientists, whom you all hold in such high esteem, have said that the chances of life are pretty much 0%.

From your tone, I guess you don't hold scientists in high esteem yourself. "Pretty much 0%" is a long, long way from "0%". This is a huuuuuuuuuuuge universe: about 10-to-the-power-of-11 stars per galaxy, and 10-to-the-power-of-11 galaxies. That puts an estimate to the number of stars as:

10000000000000000000000 Stars in the universe.

Would it be so surprising that just ONE of those stars had ONE planet with life...?

In addition, we don't know the probability of life forming. The only possible way currently is by using Drake's Equation, for which you pretty much use arbitrary inputs - so you can basically get any result you want.

So how can you have so much faith in something that doesn’t even answer the most fundamental question?

A combination of overwhelming evidence, careful appraisal of the facts, and centuries of dedicated scientific study all come to mind here. How can YOU have so much faith in religion, which answers... um, nothing. Well, nothing correctly mind you:

1. The sun goes round the earth. Strike one!

2. The earth is 6,000 years old. Strike two!

3. There was a talking snake which made the first humans eat an apple which they were sinning to eat, despite the fact that they didn't know what sin was, and which god had put there to "tempt" them despite knowing full well the consequences of his actions (being omniscient and all); thousands of years later he makes a virgin give birth to his son who is actually himself, who dies by being nailed to a tree, thus appeasing his father who is actually himself and who caused the whole mess in the first place. Of course some people say that Eden was symbolic: therefore, he was nailed to a tree to forgive mankind for a metaphorical sin committed by a non-existent person...That's a conclusive Strike three!

Not trying to be harsh here, but how can you slag off science and lay off from this garbage?

P.S. I use garbage in the loosest sense of the word; I have no wish to start ANOTHER war over religion...

[Spacepirate]

Well, I just daw a documentry of many scientists saying the exact same things I did.

Are you sure they weren't saying that they had almost 0% on coming in contact with life outside of Earth?

[Banana]

Not quite. When scientists say "we don't know right now, but we will," they are, with rare exception, making a true statement. Based on the advances in science, we do know that there are a lot of things we don't know right now that we will. It's inevitable that many of the mysteries of life will be answered. Maybe not all of them, but still. So, this isn't like saying "the Bible says." Saying "the Bible says" is an empty gesture, whereas saying "I don't know" is not. The latter is an honest answer, while the former is a faith-based gesture that is grounded only in belief, not in an essential truth.





Okay, fine. Allow me to rephrase: "Science will show us one day!" Uh, you can't know that for certain. So that is the equivalent to "Well the Bible says..." because you can't know that the Bible is true either. Neither is an argument, but strangely enough, a lot of people consider "Science will show us someday!" as one. Example:
"Science can't account for human consciousness."
"Yeah, but it will eventually."
BAM! It's all over.

And for the record, I don't believe the world was created in six days. I don't believe the sun revolves around Earth. I believe Earth is much older than 6,000 years. Yes, I am religious, but I don't have issues with religion and science co-existing. It's just frustrating for me that a lot people have the take that SCIENCE IS ALL. Okay...but is there really no room for anything else? (This is rhetorical, btw)

And the things I said before came from the mouths of university professors and scientists; I didn't invent them. I'm not saying that means that the ideas I have presented have more value than the ones everyone else has, I'm just saying that they shouldn't be dismissed so easily.

Are you sure they weren't saying that they had almost 0% on coming in contact with life outside of Earth?
Yes, I'm sure.

How can YOU have so much faith in religion, which answers... um, nothing
Nothing? Sure, it won't tell me anything about biochemistry, but it does teach me a lot about ethics. At the same time, I wouldn't reach for my biochemistry textbook when trying to find a moral stance.

The name of the documentary?
I just saw it earlier today and I can't remember anymore. :blush: I'll find out tommorow.

[Spacepirate]

Righhhhhhttt cause "religion" is sooooo ethical.

And if religion didn't exist, we'd all devolve into immoral anarchy and sinful decadence. Actually, that sounds pretty fun.

Anyway. I'm getting off topic.

[Jack]

Righhhhhhttt cause "religion" is sooooo ethical.

What he said.

/spam

[Banana]

Righhhhhhttt cause "religion" is sooooo ethical.



I'm not sure what you're implying here. Why is religion in quotation marks? And have you even read the Bible? According to it, Jesus was the epitome of good-moraled persons. So, yes, it is sooooo ethical. Just because some people who follow it mess up sometimes doesn't change the teachings. Keep in mind that science makes mistakes, too.

And if religion didn't exist, we'd all devolve into immoral anarchy and sinful decadence.

I never said that. -_-

Anyway. I'm getting off topic.
We all are. Religion and God are technically two sperate things. I regret contributing to the religion discussion for this reason.

[Shaun]

Okay, fine. Allow me to rephrase: "Science will show us one day!" Uh, you can't know that for certain. So that is the equivalent to "Well the Bible says..." because you can't know that the Bible is true either. Neither is an argument, but strangely enough, a lot of people consider "Science will show us someday!" as one. Example:
"Science can't account for human consciousness."
"Yeah, but it will eventually."
BAM! It's all over.

Based on the track record of science, when someone makes the claim that we'll know someday, they're making a true statement. Unless we go extinct, we will undoubtedly and eventually answer the questions we can't in the present. It's not an empty gesture to say "we don't know, but science will show us someday." To think otherwise is to doubt the ability of science to progress and to discount hundreds of years of scientific progress in which people said things in a similar vein as what you have said here. 150 years ago everyone thought the idea of going to the Moon was preposterous and to speculate that it was possible when science advanced enough was considered fiction at best. Now look at us.

Okay...but is there really no room for anything else? (This is rhetorical, btw)

There's room for a lot of things, but not when it comes to rational discussing.

And the things I said before came from the mouths of university professors and scientists; I didn't invent them. I'm not saying that means that the ideas I have presented have more value than the ones everyone else has, I'm just saying that they shouldn't be dismissed so easily.

WHO AND WHERE? You keep saying "I saw a documentary" or "some guy told me," but these are all empty because I don't know who you're talking about. If your university professor is a member of the Discovery Institute, then I'm less likely to take anything he says seriously than the crazy homeless guy on the street corner who says he's a reincarnated horse.

Nothing? Sure, it won't tell me anything about biochemistry, but it does teach me a lot about ethics. At the same time, I wouldn't reach for my biochemistry textbook when trying to find a moral stance.

Yes, Biblical ethics. If we take the Bible at face value it teaches us a lot of questionable ethics, such as stoning people to death for minor crimes and so on. There are a handful of really great things in the Bible, but you can't just look at the good. Hell, the Bible isn't even clear on its own ethics.

Most of what we consider to be modern ethics are derived not from the Bible, but from social developments.

[Banana]

WHO AND WHERE?
I'M SORRY! I CAN'T REMEMBER, I WILL TELL YOU TOMMOROW!

If we take the Bible at face value it teaches us a lot of questionable ethics, such as stoning people to death for minor crimes and so on.
I know I contributed to it, but we really need to stop bringing up religion. Like I said, it and God are two diffrent things. You can have the final word.

Based on the track record of science, when someone makes the claim that we'll know someday, they're making a true statement.
I disagree. I don't think that it's 100% guaranteed that we will know everything. And if we're all going to agree with you, we may as well end the debate right here because this argument can basically cover everything anyone says in favour of God/ intelligent design.

[Shaun]

I know I contributed to it, but we really need to stop bringing up religion. Like I said, it and God are two diffrent things. You can have the final word.

It's not really possible to have a God/Evolution debate without bringing in religion. Otherwise there's no debate to be had, since there is nothing inherently antithetical between God as a thing and evolution as a process. The only debate is between God as a religion and evolution.

I disagree. I don't think that it's 100% guaranteed that we will know everything. And if we're all going to agree with you, we may as well end the debate right here because this argument can basically cover everything anyone says in favour of God/ intelligent design.

Well, no, and I should clarify that I shouldn't really say or indicate "everything." You can't really know everything, because knowledge is infinite. But nothing is outside of science's ability to discuss. It seems that way now, but eventually science will answer questions we simply don't know how to answer right now.

[Zombified]

I'm not sure what you're implying here. Why is religion in quotation marks? And have you even read the Bible? According to it, Jesus was the epitome of good-moraled persons. So, yes, it is sooooo ethical. Just because some people who follow it mess up sometimes doesn't change the teachings. Keep in mind that science makes mistakes, too.


She's right, guys.

Religion isn't bad.

The systematic rape of children, witch burning, suicide bombing, murder, the crusades, homophobia, death threats and murder for depicting a prophet, sexual intolerance, general hatred are all soooo ethical.

Silly people believing in their science and logic. :rolleyes:

[ScottyMcGee]

Is this topic ever going to die? I just realized that minutes ago. It seems like this isn't necessarily a God vs. Evolution debate anymore, more like just a "Is Religion Good Or Bad" debate, etc.

[Bowie20049]

Start date: January 2009

Today's date: May 2010

Just sayin' :)

[Taka]

I fear we are getting bogged down a little here. Voila! A summary of the cases for evolution and for religion:

1.Evolution - overwhelming scientific evidence, carefully gathered, tested, appraised, approved of by the scientific community, and adapted to suit any new evidence...

2.God - no evidence

I can see the reason for the division of opinion... um... no really, I can't.

The scary thing is, the same people who believe in (2) can vote...

[Shaun]

Easy guys. We're getting a little too "attack-y" here, me included. Let's pull back. This should be a debate, but let's keep it a debate of facts, not a debate of personal traits.

[Shaun]

For the sake of preventing this debate from repeating itself anymore (it's at 32 damned pages), I'm going to close the thread. We can start new discussions about topics that have come up here, but I think all that can be said has been said. The thread isn't really going anywhere but down...